 The Clarinet BBoard
|
Author: Brian
Date: 2002-08-06 00:26
Hello Everyone!
I recently purchased a Vandoren B45 mouthpiece and I must say I am very disappointed in it. I tried it with several different reeds
( different brands as well as strengths ) and several different ligatures ( a Rovner,Bonade,Gigliotti and some generic piece of junk ). The mouthpiece was stuffy and hard to produce a good clear tone without being buzzy. I much prefer the Woodwind K 10M that came with my LeBlanc.
I am curious if anyone else has had this kind of experience with this mouthpiece. I had always heard nothing but praise about the B45 but my experience tells me otherwise. Anyway...look for a B45 for sale in the classifieds real soon!
Happy Clarineting!
Peace!
Brian
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Ginny
Date: 2002-08-06 00:44
I was happy when I switched from the B45 to a 5 RVlyre.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: GBK
Date: 2002-08-06 01:49
Brian...Vandoren mouthpieces <b>vary greatly</b> even within the same facing. I recently picked out one (B45Lyre) for a student, but went through about 20 until I found one that was satisfactory.
Although I am not at all an advocate of the B45 mouthpiece for a number of reasons, as there are, in my opinion, far better facings for approximately the same (or less) amount of money. I will not recommend one brand over the other, as it is strictly a personal decision on whether the mouthpiece will permit you to do everything you want - comfortably and effortlessly. Only you can determine that.
If possible, always try as many samples of the same machine made mouthpieces as is available to you.
Perhaps, you got one that was already "picked over". Maybe there are some other samples, from the same dealer to try.
Good luck...GBK
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Vytas
Date: 2002-08-06 03:44
I play Vandoren B45 and relay like it a lot. I own Walter Grabner's cocus mouthpiece, several Chedeville mouthpieces, E&S/Chedeville, European custom made (chedeville blank) mouthpiece. All these are fine mouthpieces but B45 works the best for me......V
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Mark Charette
Date: 2002-08-06 03:44
Mark Pinner wrote:
>
> You probably need to buy a Buffet Festival to match the
> mouthpiece.
??????????
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Jack Chen
Date: 2002-08-06 04:08
I know two professional players. They said that when they went to France to study clarinet, they were asked to switch to Vandoren B45. They said that B45 probably was the most inconsistent model in Vandoren. They both went to a music store in Paris, tried 20+ B45's, and finally found a good one.
I myslef play on a B40, which should be quite similar to B45. But I haven't found a satisfactory B45 after trying more than 10 B45's. B40, on the other hand, seems to be much more consistent then B45. Of course, each mouthpiece will feel a little bit different. But, of all the B40's I've tried, I find them pretty consistent. The advice these two professional players gave me was if I really wanted to switch to B45, be patient and try as many B45's as possible. Most importantly, don't buy until I find a good one.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Chris Hill
Date: 2002-08-06 04:57
If the K10M plays well for you, then stick with it: there are some good ones out there. Personally, I usually prefer the K10M to a B45, provided it's a good K10M. A more comfortable Vandoren product for me is the M15.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Brian
Date: 2002-08-06 08:34
Hello Again!
Thanks to all of you for the advice. As usual it was entertaining and informative!
Unfortunately for me there are no music stores in my area ( sw
Louisiana ) that allow one to test mouthpieces. And believe me I've tried them all. The closest ones I've found are in Houston ( which
is a 2 1/2 hour drive from my house ) but the problem is finding the time to get there.
I guess I'll just have to make plans to make a day of it and take that trip real soon!
Take care everyone!
Peace!
Brian
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Mini-Chief
Date: 2002-08-06 09:35
Takes some time to switch between different openings.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: David Dow
Date: 2002-08-06 11:19
I studied in France for 2 years with Guy dangain and Robert Fontaine at Ecole Normale et Superieur de Musique88-89. In the late 80s many of the newer generation players in france switched over to the B40 as a result of the feeling that the B45s produced a thinner less focused tone. Robert Fontaine was also one of my teachers there as well and his feeling was the B45 tone was too open in sonority. Without much more to say on the subject, I also endorse the B40 due to the fact it has a more covered and focused sound, and though reeds are quite resistant on this particular type of facing, it produces a good even sound through the entire range. I also have about 10 Checdelvilles, 2 kanters 2 Oppermans, also a number of 5RV lyres....again I also think you should try a number of B45s first and compare notes. Mr. Dangain told me there is a great variance from facing to facing among the Vandoren clarinet mouthpieces. This could be used to great advantage if you look hard. PS> The KM10 by Leblanc is not such a bad facing at all, and it has a good flexibility. Good Luck>>DD<<
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Bob
Date: 2002-08-06 13:03
I think the B45 got its popularity during WWII. I only own one and have only tried one and it doesn't do anything for me....but it does play differently on different reed-horn-barrel combinations.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Bob
Date: 2002-08-06 13:05
Mark C wrote:??????????
What's this mean, Mark, that you didn't get the humour?
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: David Dow
Date: 2002-08-06 16:29
B45 was invented in 1968 by Bernard vandoren.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Eileen
Date: 2002-08-06 16:38
The B45 has worked fine for me on an E-11. I use a BG Revelation ligature. If there are no stores in Louisiana, I think some of the mail order stores like the Woodwind and Brasswind will let you try out a few for a small restocking fee.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Rob Bell
Date: 2002-08-06 17:14
I play both B45's and B44's and have no problems with them!
I use vandoren optimum ligs and rovners ligs.
Rob
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Simone
Date: 2002-08-06 17:32
Last week I switched from a B45 to a Peter Eaton mouthpiece and am very happy I did. I like my sound a lot better, the high notes are smoother and I can play softer than before. I think it's worth the money!
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: John
Date: 2002-08-06 18:06
i have been playing on the B45 for about 6 years now and have only recently had problems with it. i never really thought it was too hard of a mouthpiece to play. it was a nice resistance that gave my lungs and support a challenge. but then you get a little wiser and more experienced and start to notice more things...i really started to dislike my tone earlier this year with this mouthpiece. and it has gotten increasingly difficult to play since i moved up in reed strength and thickness (thick v12 size 4)...so i got a little fed up that i couldn't make the leaps from really high to middle registers smoothly because of the mouthpiece and so i bought a Johnston "W" and a vandoren optimum ligature. the johnston is absolutely wonderful! and the tone on it (with the v12 4) is incredibly dark and warm. i've always liked the B45 mpc untill about sometime this year. for the style that i was going for, i just simply outgrew the mouthpiece.
(my clarinet is a Buffet E-11 with original Buffet barrel and my old lig (before i got the vandoren) was the inverted Bonade)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Bob
Date: 2002-08-06 22:17
David wrote: B45 was invented in 1968 by Bernard vandoren.
Hmm..guess I got my wars mixed up and must have been thinking of the B17. Oops, this is a clarinet bb, not a bomber bb..Xcuse me
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Sandra F. H.
Date: 2002-08-06 22:42
I've used several B-45's and had good and mediocre results. I found one that I used for years, and I occasionally use it now. I now use Greg Smith's Cicero Kaspar's, and I love them. Reeds can make a difference. I could not use 4 strength with the B-45, only 3.5 strength. I did use regular Vandoren reeds for years, and then switched to Moree's. I cannot use the V12's with the B-45. Their thin tips seemed even thinner with the B-45, although both the Morre's and the V12's (size 3.5) work well with Greg's mouthpieces. The B-45 worked very well with a Moennig Buffet barrel. The facings do vary greatly on the B-45's.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Kat
Date: 2002-08-06 22:59
I have a much better time with my B45 dot. It seems much freer and easier to blow than the plain B45's I've tried. I play Legere and V12 reeds, both in strength 3. (I know, I'm a wimp... ...j/k!!!)
Anyone know the physics behind this difference? i.e., why the "larger tone chamber" (or whatever) that the B45 dot has makes it easier to play than the plain B45...
Katrina
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: diz
Date: 2002-08-07 01:05
when I see a mouthpiece listing that has a lot of threads, I sometimes think it might just be an interesting angle on the often bandied topic - but I was wrong.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Patrick
Date: 2002-08-07 05:33
GBK,
Of the many posts concerning the B45 here, I personally found yours the most illuminating...and it is the key to the differences of opinion here.
From the field of statistical quality control, which is the organizing principle of modern manufacturing management, we can get a good definition of "good" or "bad" quality of a clarinet mouthpiece -- or any manufactured good:
...a unit can be considered of poor quality if it deviates significantly from specifications, and of good quality if it meets those specifications...quality is a matter of conforming to the required specifications..."
And here is your observation concerning the B45:
"Vandoren mouthpieces vary greatly even within the same facing. I recently picked out one (B45Lyre) for a student, but went through about 20 until I found one that was satisfactory."
Presumably, there is a specification around which those 20 mouthpieces deviated to an extent that 19 played in an unsatisfactory manner. According the very simple and pragmatic definition of "quality" from the experts in quality, the Vandoren B45 is a very poor quality item, with a 95% failure rate! This can be so even if most players disagree with you, GBK...provided significant deviations from spec can be identified.
While we're on the subject of Vandoren mouthpieces, we shouldn't let Selmer off the hook...or anybody else, for that matter. The Selmer C* contrabass clarinet mouthpiece, for example, has been reported on the internet to be CONSISTENTLY flawed. The author of the post reporting this attributed the problem to worn cutting machinery in Selmer's factory.
The age of numerically controlled machine tools and the principles of continuous quality improvment in manufacturing have not yet caught on in the music business. We players are still caught in the trough that separates the decline of the art of instrument making from the rise of cyber-manufacturing. But there's reason for hope: trough brands like the VII Selmer saxophones, the dead Steinway pianos, etc., have been replaced with modern and greatly superior goods, like the Selmer Serie III saxophones. Let's hope that the methods now being applied to the manufacture of synthetic clarinet reeds get transferred over to the mouthpieces to which those reeds will be lashed.
Patrick
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Patrick
Date: 2002-08-07 05:33
GBK,
Of the many posts concerning the B45 here, I personally found yours the most illuminating...and it is the key to the differences of opinion here.
From the field of statistical quality control, which is the organizing principle of modern manufacturing management, we can get a good definition of "good" or "bad" quality of a clarinet mouthpiece -- or any manufactured good:
...a unit can be considered of poor quality if it deviates significantly from specifications, and of good quality if it meets those specifications...quality is a matter of conforming to the required specifications..."
And here is your observation concerning the B45:
"Vandoren mouthpieces vary greatly even within the same facing. I recently picked out one (B45Lyre) for a student, but went through about 20 until I found one that was satisfactory."
Presumably, there is a specification around which those 20 mouthpieces deviated to an extent that 19 played in an unsatisfactory manner. According the very simple and pragmatic definition of "quality" from the experts in quality, the Vandoren B45 is a very poor quality item, with a 95% failure rate! This can be so even if most players disagree with you, GBK...provided significant deviations from spec can be identified.
While we're on the subject of Vandoren mouthpieces, we shouldn't let Selmer off the hook...or anybody else, for that matter. The Selmer C* contrabass clarinet mouthpiece, for example, has been reported on the internet to be CONSISTENTLY flawed. The author of the post reporting this attributed the problem to worn cutting machinery in Selmer's factory.
The age of numerically controlled machine tools and the principles of continuous quality improvment in manufacturing have not yet caught on in the music business. We players are still caught in the trough that separates the decline of the art of instrument making from the rise of cyber-manufacturing. But there's reason for hope: trough brands like the VII Selmer saxophones, the dead Steinway pianos, etc., have been replaced with modern and greatly superior goods, like the Selmer Serie III saxophones. Let's hope that the methods now being applied to the manufacture of synthetic clarinet reeds get transferred over to the mouthpieces to which those reeds will be lashed.
Patrick
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: diz
Date: 2002-08-07 06:51
Yes indeed - GBK is certainly a luminary-type-of-guy ...
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: GBK
Date: 2002-08-07 23:02
"...In other words B45s are out of control..."
and the control is out of the B45's, as well...GBK
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Jack Kissinger
Date: 2002-08-08 01:47
Patrick wrote:
" ... statistical quality control ... is the organizing principle of modern manufacturing management ..."
Personally, I would rather manufacturers assure quality than keep it under control. I, for one, am in favor of unconstrained quality.
There are at least a couple of problems with your analysis, however. First of all you are assuming that mouthpieces are like ball bearings or stainless steel tubing, i.e., that standardization is a virtue, per se. The second problem is that you are assuming GBK's taste is Vandoren's target with the B45 (Lyre).
Standardization may be a virtue in auto tires, or nuts and bolts, or ball bearings. These items are expected to be interchangeable in standard use. Considering how personal the choice of a mouthpiece is, however, some variability may not be a bad thing for a mass manufacturer. If all B45's were tailored to GBK's taste and all were made exactly alike, it's possible that no one but GBK would want one. Custom mouthpiece makers tailor their mouthpieces to the specific player. They start with a standard blank but modify it to their customer's taste. Another approach available to the mass manufacturer is to introduce a certain amount of variability in each model of mouthpiece so that someone willing to try a number of mouthpieces might find one that they like. If this is the case, one of GBK's castoffs might just be my ideal.
I can go to a custom maker and pay a couple hundred dollars and s/he will interact with me personally to hone in on my taste with good efficiency. Or I can pay $60 for a B45 but I may have to spend hours obtaining and trying numerous B45's until I find the one that fits me. If my time has value, the B45 may be more expensive than the custom model (and, unless there is infinite variability, I may never find one that I like). One of the reasons we value the custom maker is that the custom maker is capable of GREATER variability than the mass manufacturer). BTW, this is the exact philosophy underlying Vandoren's practice of including a range of strengths in each box of reeds. Most everyone will find at least one or two "good" ones in each box. Very few (though I seem to be one of the more fortunate in this regard) will find 9 or 10 good ones.
The second problem with your analysis is that you are assuming that the mouthpiece GBK found satisfactory was the "good" one and all the rest were defectives. While that may be the case from GBK's point of view, it is quite possible that Vandoren would consider the one he liked an outlier. It might be that most of the mouthpieces GBK tried were exactly to Vandoren's specification. It's just that Vandoren's specification is not to his taste. In other words, GBK's identification of one mouthpiece that he found satisfactory out of 20 suggests that the B45 Lyre may have a 95% failure rate for GBK but that result is not generalizable to all clarinetists. From Vandoren's perspective (unless its goal is to please GBK), the failure rate may be 5%.
Now I will make an admission. There is an old saying that, sooner or later, every clarinetist will own at least one Vandoren mouthpiece in his/her lifetime. I have NEVER owned a Vandoren mouthpiece and, frankly, have a hard time defending them. Of all the many Vandoren mouthpieces I have tried over the years, I have never found one I like and the B45 is squarely at the bottom of the list (but I've only tried 6 or 7 so I still have a long way to go ;^) ). IMHO, it is a lousy mouthpiece for me and, for reasons I and others have given elsewhere, for beginners, as well. However, I don't think that's Vandoren's fault and I'm not surprised to find some clarinetists who really like it.
Best regards,
jnk
(who would personally be happy to see all B45's dropped out of B52's)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Bob
Date: 2002-08-08 14:56
jnk wrote "(who would personally be happy to see all B45's dropped out of B52's)"
Encouraging so see that someone got it. However, I can't agree 100% with some of your arguments. I do agree that there is a lot of variability among mouthpieces and that custom makers provide very valuable services. I find it hard to believe that vd intentionally provides a mix of strengths in any given box. Rather, I'm inclined to believe the variability is allowed because the marketplace allows it....just as it allows variability in their mouthpieces.
The B45 "got" a favorable reputation somewhere in the past and the myth continues to be perpetrated by the well intentioned. Vd capitalizes on an uninformed body of amateur clarinetists; just try to make sense out of their "technical" literature. "On the other hand", as Harry Truman used to say, variability is probably impossible to control adequately when it comes to Nature's products.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Bob
Date: 2002-08-08 17:54
GBK: I read the article and I don't buy the so-called explanation for puttng reeds with strength,say, 2.5 to 2.9 in the box labelled "2". IF they can measure strength that closely, and IF players want such precise strengths then one would think that somewhere along the line they would have inked each reed with its precise strength so that the user would know the precise strength of the reed he preferred. Vd reportedly claims that players want variability....bushwah! I also want variability in my B45 mouthpieces.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Patrick
Date: 2002-08-08 18:10
Jack,
While you might take issue with my analysis of quality problems with clarinet mouthpieces, I think you are paddling upstream in defending poor quality, even if it originates with a beloved fixture of the music business, and even if you present your argument in an articulate and thoughtful way, which you did!
I don't say this because we disagree. (In fact we agree on the most important point thing -- that "unconstrained quality" is a goal to which the maker of any good should strive.) I say it because your argument -- that standardization and quality control applies only to iron age items like ball bearings -- fails in every single case in which the customers' interests are considered paramount.
Quality -- defined as adherence to standards expressing the expectations and requirements of customers -- is an almost absolute "good"; lack of quality is everywhere and at all times "bad". Poor quality always means a poorer standard of living, less for more, good money for bad work. It applies to everything you might offer for sale to somebody else, or might wish to buy, including from mouthwash to mouthpieces, rheostats to reeds.
Ironically, in saying that quality is a concern appropriate only to such things as ball bearings and steel bars, you suggest that my ideas are old fashioned; that perhaps musical instrument factories have a more enlightened view. In fact, however, Vandoren's notion that that variances in articles of commerce is good (or at least tolerable -- related here in the post by GBK) dates from the horrific late 19th century -- a freewheeling time of patent medicines, bad coffee, contaminated meat, hazardous machines, and exploitation of both consumers and workers.
A moment's reflection and a few examples should help to establish the universal applicability of the notion that "quality is adherence to standards optimizing dimensions of interest to customers".
Coffee Beans: consider what would happen if Vandoren went into the coffee business and decided to put a few rotten beans, a few arabica beans, a few robusta beans, a little of this, and a little of that into every can. What would we have? Brazilian coffee of the 1880s is what you'd have. Every bag would be different, and you'd wind up buying 50 bags of coffee to get back to that one great cup of coffee you remembered from way back.
Pharmaceuticals: What if Vandoren decided to implement their notions of manufacturing in the production of hospital medicines? How about 250mg azithromycin tablets that range from 25 to 2500 mg of active ingredient? Some people would be cured of pneumonia, but would leave their guts in the restroom, others would turn into walking epidemics! How about ampoules of morphine marked 1mg/ml that actually contain between .1mg and 10mg per milliliter? Half the people with traumatic injuries in ERs would be screaming in agony, while the other half would be comatose!
Clarinet Reeds: while we're on the subject of a manufactured product derived from plant raw materials, consider what is happening today as clarinet players buy an entire box of reeds just to get one good reed!
Jack, I play the contras, and I certainly appreciate the good Vandoren reeds that I find from time to time. They are the best playing reeds I've ever tried, of any brand. But my reeds cost over $5.00 apiece, so the equivalent of a clarinet box of reeds is $50.00. I figure that every good Vandoren reed I find (and for the contra reeds, about 40%-60% of the #3s are good, in my opinion) costs me $20.00. More than 1/2 of the reeds I throw out are too hard. I'm sorry, but I can't believe that anybody would intentionally mark different strength reeds a given strength (Vandoren 3, for example). If this is happening, it is because of difficulties in manufacturing, insepction, and testing.
Improvements in these areas -- what you refer to as standardization -- improve quality, and would reduce the cost of reeds to us players. Why would we not want to pay $5.00 and get a good reed every time, rather than $20.00, and have to do the strength testing that the manufacturer ought to do?
Clarinets: This one is for everybody who thinks trying out 20 mouthpieces is a good thing. Buy Vandoren clarinets too! Some of the horns will play in Ab, some in Db, some in Bb. Some will be stuffy, some open but bright, etc. Just think, you can try 20 different mouthpiece variations on each of 20 variable clarinets, each of these combinations with 10 different reeds! Do the math! You'll be poorer and older, but when you're done, nirvana!
Jack, you have every right to defend Vandoren's variances in their clarinet reeds and their mouthpieces, but you are going to have a hard time convincing Vandoren customers like me that this is a good thing. Or, were you just drawing me out and having a good laugh right now?
History shows that better quality always drives poorer out of the market, whenever competition is allowed to exist. Witness Toyota cars, and Yanigasawa soprano saxophones. This does not mean that Vandoren must be driven from the market -- far from it, and I for one would be very disappointed if that ever happened.
What Vandoren may need to do is define dimensions and standards that each and every B45 mouthpiece must adhere to, or it will be rejected by the newly established Vandoren Quality Assurance Department. The rejects will be analyzed, and causes of defects rooted out and corrected. Over time, customers will be able to spend less time and money getting what they want from Vandoren, and Vandoren will discover and correct whatever it is that is causing the variances (poor quality) in their mouthpieces.
But until Vandoren sets and keeps a standard, then GBK's standard is as good as any for me. Keep that copilot's chair open for me, Jack, when we take those B45s out over the Pacific for their burial at sea!
Best regards,
Patrick
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Mark Charette
Date: 2002-08-08 18:34
1) Yes, they can measure reed strengths much finer than the 1/2 or 1/4 strengths used on the boxes.
2) Zonda reeds were available in finer gradations than 1/4 strengths. Didn't help them sell any, and cost them more to produce.
3) Process refinement is a moot point for the company - it does not result in either higher customer satisfaction overall or in reduced costs.
Mark C., who's supposed to be doing 6-Sigma work as we speak.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Patrick
Date: 2002-08-08 19:02
Mark,
A 6-Sigma guy! -- Hey! Funny how "quality people" gravitate to the clarinet.
A few minor clarifications:
1) Speaking for myself, I don't ask Vandoren to give me finer measurements than I can detect, just to accurately mark a given hardness "#3" and another hardness "2". I can assure you, if they did that, everybody buying Vandoren reeds would be spending less money on reeds and personal testing time. I think Zonda wasted their time on 1 1/4 reeds, if they couldn't be distinguished by consumers from 1 1/2 reeds enough to justify possibly increased manufacturing costs.
2) I agree that process improvement does not necessarily or immediately make money for the producer; but to the extent that it produces better quality at lower prices, it always increases utility for the consumer. Of course, producers who satisfy consumers will find themselves richer than those who don't, all other things being equal.
Regards, and best success in your own process improvement work (on your day job, I mean!). Oops...I'd better pay more attention to my own day job! Arghh, where's that "boss key" for my internet browser?! Bye now!!!
Patrick
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: GBK
Date: 2002-08-08 19:06
One point of clarification in relation to the (approximately) 20 B45Lyres I tried, hoping to find a satisfactory one:
Not only did they all blow markedly different ranging from quite resistant, stuffy, bright, tightly focused, widely unfocused, etc...
I finally came across one that was free blowing, with acceptable articulation capability and nice coloration.
What troubled me most about the time and effort spent in the auditioning process, was that many of the B45Lyres visually looked <b>so different</b>. Tip rails and side rails apparently varied in thickness.
Now, I am not a mouthpiece refacer or have expertise in that area (I defer to the "big name" custom experts) but, that kind of variability in machine made mouthpieces I find unacceptable...GBK
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Jack Kissinger
Date: 2002-08-09 01:54
Patrick,
You define "quality" as "adherence to standards optimizing dimensions of interest to customers." Certainly, if one accepts this definition, the degree of variance from the norm becomes an objective measure of quality and, if B45 mouthpieces show a wide range of variance, you can assert that they are of poor quality. Still, I would be surprised to find that this definition is a standard or well-accepted one except in very narrowly defined situations. And I think you have to stretch it considerably to fit the normal understanding of the "clarinetist" on the street. Also, GBK's observations in his last message are the first evidence I have seen that such considerable variation, in fact exists.
In the main, I think our disagreement is on the definition of quality. You appear to define the standard as "uniformity in conjunction with an optimal design." I think this is too narrow to fit the current situation and I think that the problem lies with the second half of the definition. Unless one can specify what the optimal design is, the definition reduces to uniformity per se and I am unwilling to accept "degree of uniformity" as equivalent to "degree of quality" for all types of product. (At this point, I think we need to separate the discussion of mouthpieces from the discussion of reeds because, to me in any case, they are two quite different types of product as I will try to explain below.) Except in your very narrow sense of the term, I don't see anywhere in my earlier post where I'm trying to defend poor quality though I will admit to defending conscious variation. I don't hear that the cork is falling off B45's or that they turn green after a couple hours of playing time or they disintigrate if played for more than an hour at a time. At worst, all I'm hearing is that there is variation in the tip, rails, and perhaps baffle, chamber, etc. In other words, they lack uniformity. My point of disagreement is that I don't necessarily equate lack of uniformity in mouthpieces with poor quality. The fact is that because I don't like the way they play for me, I don't own any Vandoren mouthpieces. I don't know whether they are well-made or not. I suspect that GBK believes they are well-made. Why would he continue trying one after another until he found one he liked -- unless he expected to find one he liked.
I can agree that there are some types of product where uniformity is desirable and even necessary and is an important factor in determining quality. And I don't limit their scope to iron-age items, though I think ball bearings are a good example. I happen to agree that coffee blends and pharmaceuticals are also in this category for the reasons you describe. IMO, items that lend themselves to your definition are items that either (1) cannot be individually tested prior to use (such as your morphine) because the test destroys the item being tested, or (2) items that are consumed fairly quickly so that they must be replaced constantly AND the "optimal dimension" is constant (such as your coffee where a bag lasts a relatively short time and the consumer's taste doesn't change) or (3) items that are meant to be interchangeable in a standard use (my ball bearings or, perhaps computer chips). (I suspect we will probably disagree whether clarinet reeds may fall into these latter two categories.) I also think, however, that mouthpieces are fundamentally different in nature in that they are capable of being tested before purchase, they are relatively durable and can be reused for fairly long periods of time (I've been using the same one for about 40 years), and they are not used interchangeably except for the occasional clarinetist who wants an identical backup or who wishes to replace a mouthpiece. Otherwise, (and certainly it is the party line on this bulletin board) each user is an individual with individual tastes and preferences. There is simply too much uncertainty in what constitutes "optimized dimensions of interest" to make your definition very useful.
I have stated before that I think argument by analogy is risky business because if the analogy fails, the argument is destroyed. (Usually, I say this right before I attempt to make an argument by analogy.) I think a better analogy than coffee beans or pharmaceuticals in this case would be clothing. Suppose a shoe manufacturer determined that the preponderance of men desire black wing-tip shoes size 10C then proceeded to manufacture black wing-tip size 10C shoes. And suppose every pair was perfectly identical. By your definition, I would propose that this would be high quality, indeed. (And let's add that the manufacturer uses only the best materials and workmanship so that the shoes are beautiful and last a very long time. Then, by my definition, this would also be high quality.) Now, if you happen to be size 9B, too bad for you. (Because 10C is the standard, it is what all manufacturers will produce.) Well, maybe not TOO bad because you can always wear thick socks. But the poor sod who needs 11DD is out of luck. Of course, the problem is that, while the quality is quite high, the manufacturers are overlooking a seriously large part of the market so they will eventually realize that they can improve their sales by producing other sizes. But now they have a choice. Shall they custom fit their product to their customers or shall they "roll the ball down the middle" and make a number of different "standard" sizes. In the first case, they become a custom maker. In the latter case, they become a "mass marketer." Now, aside from how many standard sizes to make, the next question is whether absolute uniformity at each size (i.e., every 9B is exactly identical) is a virtue. In the case of shoes, sweaters, shirts, slacks ... and, yes, mouthpieces. I would argue that it is not. Have you ever found a pair of shoes that was absolutely perfect except that your normal size was just a skosh too small while the next size was just enough too large to be comfortable. If the store only has one pair in your size or if every pair in your size is identical, you have to look for something else. With a little variation in each size, however, you may be able to try another pair in your size and find just enough larger that it fits. If you're the shopkeeper would you rather have the variation? I would because it increases the number of potentially happy customers. Ditto for the manufacturer. The point is that, unlike the morphine, there is no NEED for standarziation so I don't see why it becomes a virtue. It's simply a matter of subdividing the market even further than the standard sizes.
Now, as far as reeds are concerned, the above argument is harder to make because reeds don't last as long as mouthpieces, you can't test them and only buy the ones you like and they need replaced regularly. Still, one can argue that some variation might be desirable because the "optimal dimension" is not necessarily constant but rather may vary even for a given player as a result of changes in temperature, humidity, altitude, type of music being played and so on. Also, suppose Vandoren did eliminate all variability in their contra reeds. What guarantee is there that one of their standard sizes would correspond to your preferences. Would you rather live in a world where you can occasionally find a really great reed though it's expensive or a world where you would never find a reed that you really like unless you make it yourself?
For the reasons I have given above, I think your definition of quality makes sense for coffee beans and pharmaceuticals. FWIW, I'm sympathetic to your argument regarding reeds but I can see some validity in Vandoren's approach, as well. I wonder how Vandoren would come out if your definition were applied at the box level rather than the level of individual reed. I think you got a little carried away in your discussion of clarinets -- random keys? Come on, that would require that customers not even be able to look at the instrument before they bought it. Given standards of pitch and the manufacturer's concept of pleasant tone, I am inclined to agree that wide variation is undesirable. Also, I suspect (but this is pure conjecture) that clarinetists have less variation in their perception of "optimal" with regard to a clarinet than they do with regard to a mouthpiece. (Very few clarinetists purchase customized clarinets, though they do sometimes spend considerable sums on new instruments having them set up.) If that's the case uniformity may be a greater virtue (and it certainly is with regard to intonation). Even so, some variety in spring tension and resistance may be desirable from a standpoint of increasing the customer base.
Best regards,
jnk
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Bob
Date: 2002-08-09 15:26
I still recall one prof's statement more or less which was, "Everything should be quantified, and if you can't measure it, quantify it anyway." Certainly have enjoyed the conversation,really.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: David Dow
Date: 2002-08-10 00:09
There seems to also be an underlying phobia among players that quality control is poor, but I tend to feel that every mouthpiece made no matter by who, has inherently good and bad traits. if one takes the idea of consistentcy too far, then if every mouthpiece played exactly the same,-- then what would make the faing we settle on the one we like best? In this question you become prey to a blind semantic dialectical proposition which means we are thinking in a complete circle. How can anyone entirely know the facing is perfectly accurate until you buy a micrometer or send it to someone like Mr. Smith who knows far more then most players. I certainly would not lose sleep over the fact the B45s are all so differnet, and would say I know of no two chedeville's of the same facing that are entirely alike either. The big thing is to find what settles best, or take the mouthpiece we don't like and drop it off a cliff.(ha ha) The 5RVlyre's are even more inconsistent to good effect in that you may find the one of your dreams. I myself have found a great variance in the B45 but never had much use for it as a pro. But that being said it may suit others who are willing to invest their time in looking for one...
In the early 90s Vandoren also moved the production site out of Paris, and also stopped stamping the Vandoren logo into the front of the mouthpieces. Mr. Jean-Paul Gauvin(Vandoren rep) also informed me at a confernce in Montreal that quality control is as high as it was 30 years ago.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: bflatclarinetist
Date: 2005-10-08 23:29
My opinion:
This by far the worst mouthpiece ever! It's completely out of tune and it's terrible in the altissimo. My stock mouthpiece is better!
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: BelgianClarinet
Date: 2005-10-09 08:55
Me too have the experiience that since quite some time pro's overhere left the B45 path for the B40.
At first I was not convinced, but at the end the tone is much nicer, but the B40 seems to be less free blowing.
I'm no just testing some (the 13 variant to help me get my pitch down) and probably will make the switch to B40 and forget the B45
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: BobD
Date: 2005-10-09 13:13
Interesting and amusing mix of opinions. After reading a few of "Bob"'s I started to reply to him off-board to let him know how much I appreciated his humour......but discovered he was I. Nice editing job guys.
Bob Draznik
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
The Clarinet Pages
|
 |
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
