 The Clarinet BBoard
|
Author: dave
Date: 1999-02-01 20:11
Under what conditions would you select a Vandoren profile 88 B45 mp over the regular Vandoren B45. I know the difference has something to do with the angle of the mp, but I'm not sure what impact that has on performance. Also any comments/recommendations on crystal mouthpieces - I like the look but wonder what impact, if any, on sound.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Mark Charette
Date: 1999-02-01 23:30
dave wrote:
-------------------------------
Under what conditions would you select a Vandoren profile 88 B45 mp over the regular Vandoren B45.
If I found I sounded/played/articulated significantly better after playing it for a number of hours. Honestly! There's no magic in the mouthpiece, but there may be magic between the mouthpiece, the clarinet, and your embouchure. Sounds trite, but it's true. That's why there are so many models on the market - a mouthpiece totally unusable by one person may be godsend to another.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Katherine Pincock
Date: 1999-02-02 01:39
I found that the Profile 88 mouthpiece didn't actually feel too different from the regular profile--I switched to a mouthpiece in the Profile 88 style this fall. I can't really comment on the straight difference, because I switched type of mouthpiece as well as profile, but I would suggest trying both. Whichever you like, go with that! My philosophy for all these things is, if it feels right, it is. SO have fun trying!
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Dee
Date: 1999-02-02 02:00
As I understand it, the chambers of the B45 and B45 Profile 88 are identical. It is only the external contour of the mouthpiece that it different. The Profile 88 slopes quite quickly at first and is thus not so "fat" at any given spot for this mouthpiece. This would be advantageous for someone who has a small mouth that doesn't open very far. Perhaps it would be more comfortable for people who have jaw problems that prevent them from opening their mouth well. Other than that, it should be a matter of personal preference. I happen to like the Profile 88 shape.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Kylene
Date: 1999-02-02 04:43
there was some "magic" when I got my profile 88! I find that it allows me to take more of the MP into my mouth, this helping with intonation and projection. I love my Profile 88 2 tone B45.....
I was also wondering about the crystal MPs
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Albert
Date: 1999-02-02 21:36
Do the Vandoren 2 tones cost more. I've always wanted one. I bet there's no tone difference, just the look.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Merry
Date: 1999-02-02 23:15
When I bought my Buffet clarinet and it came with a B45 profile 88. I tried for a couple of months and didn't like it, it made my jaw ache for some reason. However, I gave it to one of my students who had problems with her embouchure on a normal B45 mouthpiece and she loved the profile 88. As the others have mentioned it just comes down to personal preference.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Kylene
Date: 1999-02-03 02:48
I dont know the exact price on it......I got it half price because I bought it with a new instrument, and I wasnt even paying...the clarinet was a gift from my parents. However, if the price is higher, I am sure that it isnt that much higher.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: John
Date: 1999-02-05 01:42
Some of you have asked about the "sound" of a crystal (glass) mouthpiece. It has been my experience that the differences a rubber mouthpiece player finds when trying a crystal are attributable to differences in the dimensions of the mouthpiece bore, chamber, baffle and facing. If you were to close your eyes while I played a passage first on my old O'Brien crystal, next on a modern Vandoren 5RVL, and lastly on my 1950's ******* (midwestern maker cult mouthpiece), you would probably hear slight differences in the sound from one to another, but I doubt that anyone could identify which mp is the crystal.
Years ago, some players were willing to risk the fragility of crystals (to be safe, you needed to carry a spare mp because the crystal, especially the tip, was quite fragile) because unless the crystal were to be broken or tampered with, the lay and chamber dimensions were immune to wear. This was contrasted with the hard rubber mouthpieces, which in those days were prone to wear and change over a period of time. I would guess that the modern hard rubber mps are far more stable, so that the chief advantage of the crystal (stability over time) has disappeared.
At one time, crystals were the mouthpiece of choice for Italian clarinet players. Some who came to this country continued to play on crystal mps. (Gino Cioffi played a close lay crystal.)
In a booklet which the Selmer company published in the early 1950's, Alexandre Selmer (who was still alive!) stated a preference for crystal mouthpieces.
Many of us played O'Brien crystals because we liked the way they worked, despite the fact that they were made out of glass! Harry O'Brien was a master mp maker who had been a top professional clarinet player with groups such as the Sousa band. His mps would have been good regardless of the material. When he died, his son Lowell continued to make O'Brien crystals. I note that an "O'Brien crystal" is still listed in some of the catalogs, although I doubt that Lowell is still making them because if he is still alive, he would be quite elderly by now.
May I suggest to the younger players out there who are searching for old cult mouthpieces of whatever material or make, that the top mp makers of today (Hite, Ridenour etc.) know all about the old cult mps, and their modern creations are (often significant) improvements on those older mps. I mention these two not to the exclusion of other equally fine mp makers, but because on both of their websites each provides, free of charge, thorough, accurate and invaluable information on mouthpiece theory, design and selection.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
The Clarinet Pages
|
 |
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
