 The Clarinet BBoard
|
Author: ACCA
Date: 2022-01-24 19:49
Hi All
Among saxophone mouthpieces is huge variation in chamber size, baffle shape (step, rollover, flat) and chamber shape (round, horseshoe, square, etc). Among clarinet mouthpieces the differences are much more subtle. What are the reasons behind this? Preferences for a darker clarinet sound? Less financial reward for r&d compared with saxophonists who are notorious gear junkies :-) ? Or is there an actual acoustic reason why a clarinet mouthpiece with, for instance, a round chamber instead of the usual near-parallel sidewalls wouldn’t work? And what about window shape (rectangular on a clarinet versus semi-circle shape on most sax mp’s)?
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: stevesklar
Date: 2022-01-24 20:22
You could state the total opposite on that.
Sax mpcs are complex designs.
Clarinet mpcs are complex designs too, required more of a discerned eye to see.
Clarinet mpcs are smaller than the general sax mpc.
Thus the changes will be "smaller" but with the same impact for design variances.
Vandoren, currently offers about 18 Bb clarinet mouthpieces today.
You have wide and shallow H throats, A throats, larger and smaller tips, shorter and longer facings, longer and shorter chambers, etc.
One major problem is you don't have as many manufacturers. You'll have people that will reface another's product but not as many variations as the past. Zinner "blanks" company ahs been defunct now, removing a "base" mpc for people to design their own offerings.
Clarinet mpcs can vary, but get limited support and thus you don't see them much.
For instance, Wells used to have a weird key shaped window on his clarinet mpc.
https://www.woodwindforum.com/clarinetperfection/CLmpcGallery/Wells/2-04.jpg
==========
Stephen Sklar
My YouTube Channel of Clarinet Information
Post Edited (2022-01-24 20:38)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: kdk
Date: 2022-01-24 23:50
stevesklar wrote:
> Vandoren, currently offers about 18 Bb clarinet mouthpieces
> today.
> You have wide and shallow H throats, A throats, larger and
> smaller tips, shorter and longer facings, longer and shorter
> chambers, etc.
>
> One major problem is you don't have as many manufacturers.
The manufacturers regard most of their mouthpieces' parameters as proprietary and don't tell the potential user anything about them other than the tip opening and some general descriptor about the curve length. A few actually give the curve length (in mm) but don't tell you how it was measured (if with a feeler gauge, what thickness?). So the buyer has no way to realistically compare mouthpieces directly except by ordering specimens and doing their own comparisons.
There is something to said for trying mouthpieces (and other equipment) and basing your evaluation on your own result. But if more specs were advertised, a buyer might be able to buy, or at least try, a little less blindly.
Karl
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: stevesklar
Date: 2022-01-25 00:25
And most buyers would not know how to interpret (or compare) such details if specific details were given.
Which is one reason why there is usually a description of what one may expect from that mouthpiece, no matter how short.
to quote Selmer (on their webpage) https://www.conn-selmer.com/en-us/instruments/accessories/henri-selmer-paris-mouthpiece
When selecting a mouthpiece, it is necessary to take into account both the musician and the instrument. Although seemingly simple in shape, the mouthpiece is actually quite complex and crucial to getting good results. Poor sound is sometimes blamed on the instrument when an improper mouthpiece is really at fault. Also, a good mouthpiece can noticeably improve any instrument’s sound.
The relationship between the chamber, baffle, bore, facing length and tip opening subtly affects musical and acoustical characteristics – sonority, fullness, volume, accuracy of pitch, and response. Any variation – no matter how minor – will produce quite different results.
A mouthpiece varies as each musician varies: selecting the right one depends on the desired musical results, the player’s embouchure, and the instrument. A bad combination of mouthpiece bore and clarinet bore or saxophone mouthpipe could spoil pitch accuracy, tone quality, and response.
Players should not always choose the easiest-playing mouthpiece. A better choice is one that allows total control of reed vibrations and may offer some resistance.
Of course, when you ask a forum of players they'll all give different responses of everything anyways.
==========
Stephen Sklar
My YouTube Channel of Clarinet Information
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Paul Aviles
Date: 2022-01-25 19:03
To address the "similarities," I'd say that the cylindrical bore of the clarinet makes it so that there is MUCH less play available in the bore and (to a degree) the tone chamber than there is with a conical bore instrument (all other woodwinds). If you have a clarinet that strays from the standard design then you have to make compensations for that in the mouthpiece as well. One example is the Boosey and Hawkes 1010. That clarinet has cylindrical bore to match (in part due to the large bore of the 1010). If you were to place a Boosey 1010 mouthpiece on any other clarinet you'd get some pretty bad intonation irregularities going up and down the tube (and vice versa). There are some more subtle differences in the bore/tone chamber configurations of the German mouthpiece compared with the French, but one CAN make that work (you just need to know that you are making some further compensations for pitch).
I wish there was a greater emphasis on getting the BASIC dimensions of the mouthpiece out to folks. I know why it is not. It is much easier to SELL something as new and exciting when you don't even know what you are currently using in the first place. Just change a reed and your off to the races. It took me a few decades to realize what configuration was more pleasing to me and allowed me to rule out a good percentage of what comes down the pike, saving me a lot of time and frustration. On that front though I think the best advice on mouthpieces is once you've found something that works great.....STOP LOOKING!!!
..............Paul Aviles
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Matt74
Date: 2022-01-26 05:49
I cannot get as many different sounds on a clarinet with one mouthpiece, as I can on a saxophone with one mouthpiece. I think this has something to do with the missing overtones.
IMO the clarinet has a more pleasing, but less alterable, natural sound. It has a stronger inherent character. The difference between jazz and classical, or between French and German setups aren't that striking.
It's harder to sound good on a saxophone, but it's a much more alterable natural sound. IMO that leads to different mouthpiece designs and approaches to sound. You can almost guess the decade by the sound. The variety of contexts that saxophones are played in is much greater than clarinets, so there is more demand for variety.
I've never heard the equivalent of a Meyer or Dukoff on a clarinet, so I don't actually know how it would sound. I imagine that they would not sound as different as they do on saxophones.
- Matthew Simington
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: seabreeze
Date: 2022-01-26 07:13
Meyer Bros, New York from about 1965 to at least the 1970s made clarinet mouthpieces that came in three chamber sizes, S, M, and L and a variety of facings. Doublers tended to favor the more open facings, which were quite open even by today's standards. You can see a 5s Medium Chamber Meyer Bros mouthpiece with a wide tip opening for sale on the SaxQuest site. Look for "Used vintage clarinet mouthpieces" at https://www.saxquest.com. There was nothing radical about the design; it was standard "cookbook" issue except for the choice of open facings. Dave Breeden's father, Leon Breeden, famous for starting the jazz program at North Texas State (Denton, TX), played a Meyer Bros. clarinet mouthpiece. Breeden made a long playing 33 1/3 rpm record--"Fun with the Clarinet-An Audio-Visual Adventure"--giving instruction on how to play jazz clarinet, and in the liner notes he reported his preference for Meyer clarinet mouthpieces.
Dukoff did design a few clarinet mouthpieces. Some of them had his "fluted" chamber design. He also supposedly designed a clarinet mouthpiece that pops up on Internet from time to time called the "Zimberhoff House of Note BD Supersonic model." These are reputed to have the capacity for very loud playing. Like the Meyer, they were made of hard rubber. I've never played them.
'
used
Post Edited (2022-01-26 08:36)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: stevesklar
Date: 2022-01-26 22:05
And Woodwind had various mpc designs in various tip openings. See the attachment for more info
edit:the attachments got errors, thus a couple links
such as:
https://mediaprocessor.websimages.com/width/684/crop/0,0,684x819/www.nicolastrefeil.com/woodwind%20Co%20catalog%201950%20page%205%20-6%20Nicolas%20Trefeil.jpg
https://mediaprocessor.websimages.com/width/678/crop/0,0,678x817/www.nicolastrefeil.com/woodwind%20Co%20catalog%201950%20page%203%20-%204%20Nicolas%20Trefeil.jpg
==========
Stephen Sklar
My YouTube Channel of Clarinet Information
Post Edited (2022-01-26 22:10)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: super20dan
Date: 2022-01-27 03:35
i have a vintage slant sig otto link clarinet mpc which one would equate for jazz only playing. there is nothing remarkable about this mpcs playing characteristics. it plays very well but no different than most clarinet mpcs. there are very few clarinet mpcs which radically depart from normal desighn. 3 i have are claude lakey studio, rico metalite (has a high baffel like a sax mpc) and runyon bionex which is like a lakey inside-small h shaped chamber. one interesting thing about the lakey is it tunes at a442 . the only clarinet mpc i have played of normal desighn that i i have played that really helps you play "jazz" is the vandoren 5jb.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: davyd
Date: 2022-02-02 22:27
Some years ago, I went through the WW&BW catalog, and made a spreadsheet-style list of all the different manufacturers, models, and facings. I came up with 38 Eb designs, 246 Bb/A designs, 15 alto designs, 42 bass designs, and 6 contra designs. No doubt there are many more nowadays. How is anyone supposed to know where to start in selecting the "right" one for them?
It's even worse for saxophones. I came up with 438 soprano designs, 826 alto designs, 966 tenor designs, and 448 baritone designs.
Further, consider all the different types of ligatures and reeds. It's positively mind-boggling.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Paul Aviles
Date: 2022-02-03 03:02
The basic concepts of facing length and opening as it relates to reed strength really helps to cut down on the gobbledy gook (maybe). If you take a given facing and increase the tip opening, you would increase the resistance on a given reed OR need to use increasingly weaker reeds to compensate. If you take a given opening and DECREASE the length of the facing (or lay), you increase the resistance, or need to use increasingly softer reeds to compensate.
You can see where you can get the same resistance with a larger opening and a longer lay. One reason to prefer a larger tip opening is that with a larger tip opening it is easier to alter pitch with your lip/jaw. This is handy for jazz and vibrato. The reason to go the other way (smaller opening and shorter facing) is that the control you cede to the mouthpiece, the easier it is the obtain consistent pitch and timbre throughout the horn. There is a tendency for classical players to tend in that direction.
I prefer to know at least those two basic parameters and think of it as sliding scales of control. That way you can think of the dimensions as more of something or less of something rather than just a distinct measurement.
Should make it easier.
....................Paul Aviles
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
The Clarinet Pages
|
 |
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
