 The Clarinet BBoard
|
Author: Michael Woods
Date: 2002-07-14 23:12
I am entering my junior year at William and Mary, and I am principal clarinet in the orchestra. For the past six months of my life (it feels like much longer) I have been on an extensive mouthpiece search. All my life I have played on a Vandoren 5RV lyre profile 88, and now I am looking for a mouthpiece with a deeper, DARKER sound. My teacher plays on a Pyne Signature ~M and I really like her sound. She's had me try it on several occassions, and I've loved it. Her backup is also a Pyne, and I loved that one, too. However, after trying over 50 Pynes from Woodwind and Brasswind, Muncy, Weiner, and even Pyne himself, I have yet to find one that is even close to either of hers. I've brought all of them into her, and she has agreed that none of them are even close to being as dark. So I sent Pyne her mouthpiece specifications and had one custom-made. It turned out to be the worst yet. Outside of Pynes, I have tried Morgan, Gigliotti, Vandoren M15, and Jewell. I haven't like any of them as much as my teacher's Pynes.
I'm very frustrated. Any advice or suggestions would be greatly appreciated.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Fred
Date: 2002-07-14 23:48
1. Did you send her Pyne to Pyne, or someone else? If it was Pyne, I'd probably throw in the towel on that idea.
2. Have you tried Greg Smith's mouthpieces? He makes three Ched's, two Kaspars, plus some wooden models that I know of. You see VERY FEW used Greg Smith mp's on the market. There is a very good reason . . . they play great! Just make sure to at least begin with his reed recommendations for his mouthpieces.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Irwin
Date: 2002-07-15 02:10
I've got two of Greg Smith's Cheds. "Dark" is a fairly subjective standard, however, I believe mine coupled with my Leblanc Opus give me that sound quality. Greg recommends Vandoren V12 - size 3.5 for these mouthpieces (which I also use). I'm extremely happy with my mouthpieces.
Greg is very approachable. You can e-mail him (he's a Sneezy sponsor) and also call him to get more information concerning his mouthpieces and which one would be best given your particular setup.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Karel
Date: 2002-07-15 02:33
I have Greg Smith mpc which i like very much. I also like J D Hite model M mpc; easy blowing and a very smooth sound. I am waiting for his model H to come from IMS, it has taken them 2 months so far. Has anyone else had problems getting information or help from their Margaret Pittman?
Karel.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Jerry McD
Date: 2002-07-15 04:18
I too play on Greg Smith's Chedeville (#1) and I think it is a terrific mouthpiece. I would recommend you try the M13 Lyre and the new M15 - both profile 88. I know several people that play on Fobes and like them very much as well (I personally haven't tried them extensively). The one thing I would say is stay patient. There is no such thing as the perfect mouthpiece......even though we all are on the search for the holy grail!
Good luck!
Jerry McD.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: :-)
Date: 2002-07-15 04:34
Try Charles Bay! I recently bought one of his mouthpieces and I love it! Compared to Vandoren it gives a darker, smoother sound. (at least thatīs what I find...)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: William
Date: 2002-07-15 14:57
Count my vote, also, for Greg Smith's mpcs. I have a Ched Model #1 and a Cicero Kaspar model that both play well. However, it is important to remember that your own tonal concept is the most important factor in your own pesonal sound and you should not rely on the mouthpiece alone for a "quality" sound. Bernard Portnoy (a master mouthpiece maker and supurb clarinetist) and Larry Combs (Pricipal clarinet, Chicago Symphony Orch) have both stated that no matter whose mouthpiece you play, you will eventually wind up sounding like yourself. The sound that you "have in your head" will always surface, eventually. Wouldn't it be nice if, we wanted to sound like Harold Wright, to simply play the same mouthpiece he did?? A new mouthpiece will make a difference in tonal quality for a short time, but eventually the "inner sound" will emerge. What is more important in mpc selection, should be articulative response, flexability from soft to loud, and "reed friendliness." And, of course, it shouldnn't make you sound like an out of tune duck. But then, if all you listen to are high altitude mallards and teal.......
Personally, I think that good intonation, flawless technique and tasteful musicial expression are far more important than "good" sound. Our local college wind ensemble conductor and youth symphony conductor, often offeres to his students that, "an in-tune sound is a pretty sound." Translation--play in tune and sound good.
Bottom line: Pick the mouthpiece that lets you play in tune, maintains its tonal focus throughout your clarinets playing range and lets you be most musically expressive.
(Perhaps that mallard could make principal chair if it would just tune up and qwack right)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Brenda Siewert
Date: 2002-07-15 15:16
Please, please heed the advise to get in touch with Greg Smith. You won't regret it. I play on one of his Grenadilla wood mouthpieces that he made for me to match the specs of my Kaspar Cicero 13. I've bought several from him and never had a bad experience. When I haven't liked one, I just sent it back and there was no problem (within his time limit, of course). He'll be happy to visit with you about your set-up, etc. Any serious-minded player owes it to him/herself to give his stuff a try. I'm really kind of surprised you haven't already done so.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: James
Date: 2002-07-16 04:06
I love dark playing.... Except everyone has such a different definition of dark. Those terms are kind of over used in my opinion but sometimes its the only way to get our point across. You see alot of people up here have recommended Mr. Smith's mouthpiece's. They are fantastique! (I meant to spell it that way). Also another really good mouthpiece to try are the Hawkins. Just like Mr. Smith's mouthpieces are used by high quality clarinetist so are the hawkins. I can't begin to tell you all the people i know that use them (and maybe i shouldn't say that on this board becuase I don't have the permission to do so).
A TON of people at eastman are using the M15 mouthpieces made by vandoren. Personally unless you tune to 442 the 13 series are best to get. Anyhow... good luck in your search.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: nzdonald
Date: 2002-07-16 11:21
the odd thing is, i know several pro players who use Pyne, and lots of people (pro and advanced student level) who use various versions of the Zinner blank (ie- Hawkins, Smith etc) and they all sound different, they all sound GREAT
but i don't know when i last heard a player i'd describe as "dark"
usually, i am listening to a fabulous ringing sound with lots of great harmonics in the sound. Often it is a very "clear" sound, often with an intensity in the "core"
sometimes i hear something you might want to describe as "dark" but usually it is not the predominant characteristic.
on the other hand, i know a player who uses a Gigliotti, and she is certainly "dark" (but also lacking in vibrancy somewhat)...... oh, the APO principal Gordon Richards plays Gigliotti, but he has a bright ringing sound... very lyrical.
what does all this mean?
donald
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Mark Charette
Date: 2002-07-16 11:44
nzdonald wrote:
>
>
> what does all this mean?
> donald
"It don't mean a thing if it ain't got that swing, doo wah doo wah doo wah doo wah".
Really. Equipment only gets you so far in any hobby or career. Practice gets you a lot further.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Kevin
Date: 2002-07-17 20:04
I have several friends who play Greg Smiths but only one of those mouthpieces did any thing for me. I have played his Kaspars and Cheds and only found inconsistancy. I have a Pyne and several others but for pure tone I love my Tom Ridenour mouthpiece. He works out of Denton and also is good about working with you if you have a problem with your mouthpiece or horn.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: ChattyClar
Date: 2002-07-18 19:47
I appreciate all your advice. I forgot to mention in the original message that I had tried Greg Smith's full line of mouthpieces. He was hesitant to send me them to me at first because they play very differently than Pynes. I tried them, and they were nice mouthpieces, but they werent' what I was looking for.
I am going to try the Hawkins and Bays. I also am going to give the M15s a second chance. If they are good enough for Eastman, they are certainly good enough for me
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Joe
Date: 2002-07-19 01:34
Your "play in tune and sound good" philosophy is fatally flawed. In tune is just the beginning; in section playing, you must also be able to blend. A good idea is if you play regularly in an ensemble find a mouthpiece that has a similar tone quality as the other members of your section. If you do more solo playing, find a mouthpiece that gives you the sound you want. If you try enough of that kind of mouthpiece, you're bound to eentually find one that sounds great while retaining good tuning.
Right now I play on a Gigliotti P34 440, and it gets a nice sound. Unfortunately it doesn't allow for the full flexabity and response in articulation that is optimal. I recently tried both the Greg Smith Chedville and Kaspar Chicago. Of the two, the Chicago Kaspar is the darker and is the best mouthpiece I've tried. If you're not already convinced by the other letters, try a few. You'll love them. If you give Greg a call, he will try the mouthpieces before he sends them to you and will send multiple muthpieces. You only pay for shipping until you find one you like.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Ralph Morgan,
Date: 2002-07-22 22:17
To the curious:
During the 30 years I spent at The SELMER Co., retiring as chief woodwind technician and designer, and the 22 years since that time, handcrafting what are termed by many players worldwide as "The finest mouthpieces made", I have observed an ever growing search on the part of clarinetists for a better mouthpiece, and have also observed a rapidly growing group of so-called 'makers' of mouthpieces rushing to fill that void in which the search takes place.
I would like to throw my two cents' worth into the ring, and hopefully bring some basic acoustical design principals to light that I have yet to see anything of a most important technical nature written about. So, with the hope that you will profit, and not be bored by, the
true basics of clarinet, and so, mouthpiece, design, which, if properly applied, tend to produce the type of mouthpiece you all seem to be talking about, looking for, and end up not finding,
I will ask you all to bear with me.
1. In doing clinics on this subject for the last 49 years, I usually ask someone to tell me the meaning of A-440. First answer usually is that it is the tuning note for the symphony orchestra.
Just the raw beginning. Next, is what does the 440 stand for? Usually someone comes up with the number of vibrations per second of that pitch level. But, when I ask what is vibrating, we come to either a lack of or great difference in the perceived meaning. Let's skip a page or two and very quickly point out that this means, "A precisely measured cubic volume of some subatance, which when set in vibratory motion, vibrates at exactly 440 vibrations, or cycles, or hertz, per second, thus producing the pitch level of sound we label A-440.
2. Under normal operation, the manufacturer of some element of the music world, whatever it might be, must design and construct it in such manner that it CAN not only that pitch level, but all the accopanying ones which make up the useable scale of that entitiey. Thus, you quickly see that YOU, THE MUSICIAN, are the one the manufacturer takes their orders from in the manufacturing process! Onward to the designer------
3.In this case we are concentrating on the clarinet, pitched in Bb, and to be fitted with a mechanism to produce the normal musical scale. Now the first operation is to recognize that we need a very finite and precise cubic volume of air confined in the bore of the clarinet to produce each of the desired pitch levels.
4. In the case of the clarinet, let us see how that cubic volume is contrived, and what components make it up. At this point, I hasten to say that what we have in the way of clarinets, and mouthpieces, is a far cry from what they should be if the precepts of correct acoustical design are adhered to. (now I am aware of the first evidence of a hue and cry forming in the little grey cells out there) . It is true that a few writers have put into print a presumed mathmatical equation or 2, or many more, which are thought to be able to produce a proper clarinet, if used. However, in each of the writings I have read, they always refer to this
as merely being theoretical. I whole heartedly agree! But, acoustical design is not theoretical at all, but is an extremely exact science. Exhaustive tests prove that one can perceive a very slight difference in pitch easier and more precisely that any other difference in any other media.
4. But, back on track. since we will be working with a very exact cubic volume of air in the bore of the clarinet, where do we start and end the bore volume needed to produce any particular note??? Well, in the equations used in the designing, we expect to find the well-known constant numerical figure, Pi, or 3.1416, since we are dealing with tubular shapes. However, in the case of the clarinet, as well as other tubular instruments, we find ,not oe, but TWO constants. Since it is not possible to change a constant and come up with the correct answers, let us now find out what the other constant refers to. (PLEASE DON'T START HUNTING, BECAUSE YOU WILL NEVER FIND IT WRITTEN!) It happens to be the cubic volume of the portion of the bore of the instrument that the aforementioned writers all say is inconsequential, and can be disregarded for all practical purposes! AND JUST WHAT IS THAT PORTION OF THE BORE?
Don't be too shocked when I tell you that it is the cubic volume of the chamber of the mouthpiece !!!! Is it any wonder then, that we presently have a fairyland of mouthpieces to trip through, trying desparately to find"THAT" one.
5. Back in the darker ages, the mouthpieces were very carefully constructed, with exacting handwork on the interior. The side walls of the chamber were not the configuration we see today. Interestingly enough, the problems which we put up with in all modern clarinets seemed
not in evidence then. Today we try various remedies for twelths that stretch, and throat tones that sound from another world, and the middle e's and f's which hang flat, and the ever sharper and thinner altissimo notes, to the point that we shrug and accept them, trying to fix reeds and embouchures for each instrument and mouthpiece.
6.FRANKLY, THE PROBLEMS WHICH WE ATTRIBUTE TO THE CLARINET, HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH THE INSTRUMENT. IN COMPARING THE CUBIC VOLUME OF THE CHAMBERS OF CLARINET MOUTHPIECES MADE SINCE ABOUT 1935, WITH RARE EXCEPTION, IT IS FOUND THEY ALL HAVE VOLUMES FROM 29% to 31% LESS THAN THAT REPRESENTED BY THE SECOND CONSTANT!!!!
It is no wonder to me that the problems do not come from the clarinet, but from poorly designed and/or manufactured mouthpieces. We must also include a little mention of the fact that the mechanical revolution had its part here, since it really does well only when cutting in straight lines, as we see in the interior of all clarinet mouthpieces.
7. [While the rest of this post was interesting, it constituted an advertisement, and as such cannot be left on the BBoard. I welcome Mr. Morgan in contributing to the BBoard, but must ask him to refrain from promoting his products here.]
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Fred
Date: 2002-07-23 01:38
Mr. Morgan, thanks for taking the time to post. It was a pleasure reading what you had to say.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
The Clarinet Pages
|
 |
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
