Keepers

Keepers The C4 standard

New Topic | Go to Top | Go to Topic | Search | Help/Rules | Smileys/Notes | Log In

Re: mouthpiece patina, additional thoughts

Author: Brad Behn
Date: 2006-06-21 21:30

Mouthpieces can be tweaked many times but I too believe mouthpieces are best if refaced as little as possible. I consider refacing as a much more comprehensive approach to mouthpiece work, and tweaking as one ore two very slight adjustments to improve a good mouthpiece. Tweaking can be all that is needed to bring a mouthpiece back to life.

Tweaking mouthpieces does remove material and discretion is advised, but to bring a mouthpiece that has grown tired from many years (five or more) of hard use (hours each day), a little tweak is often all that is necessary.

What is a tweaking? A mouthpiece can be very slightly adjusted to bring it back to spec. This may only require a slight facing pass to remove the rail tilt and a single table pass to close it back to its original facing dimensions. Perhaps the mouthpiece would improve with a thinner tip rail, or thinner rails. This can be done without touching the table or the facing. The possibilities are endless, but on a fine mouthpiece this is often all that is necessary. Sure it fits in the family of refacing, but it generally means that very little material is removed. Tweaking a mouthpiece is what I meant when I suggested that a typical mouthpiece can be brought back to spec dozens or even a hundred times. In my opinion once a mouthpiece has been faced into a good place, less is more.

What is bringing a mouthpiece back to spec? A mouthpiece that is up to spec is one that is at its best. Presumably the original maker of the mouthpiece made it to its optimum performance, and if a mouthpiece changes, bringing it back to spec implies that it should be brought back to its original playing condition/characteristics.

Indeed a mouthpiece may be great to one player and a dog to another player, so bringing a mouthpiece up to spec may not be the best course of action. I look at it this way, the playing experience is a result of ones concept, embouchure, reed, wind and mouthpiece working in combination. Our job as mouthpiece makers is to thread the needle. We must make a mouthpiece that works in harmony with the player’s concept, reed style/strength, embouchure, and wind.

When it comes to any mouthpiece modification the goal is to remove the least amount of material possible while achieving the best playing characteristics. I agree with everyone’s concerns that by refacing, not only valuable material is lost but the geometry of the mouthpiece changes as well.

But a refacer can adjust both the baffle’s shape and the table’s origin (angle that the facing is cut into the body) of an old tired mouthpiece so as to maintain the integrity of the mouthpiece’s original design, feel, response, and sound. Indeed there is a point of no return but that may be farther down the refacing trail than some may believe. I think it is unfortunate for clarinetists to think that they can’t adjust or improve a mouthpiece because of fear that there isn’t enough material.

Caution is advised. I have witnessed what was once an amazing H. Chedeville get refaced so many times (by just about everyone I can think of), that it is practically the size of an Eb mouthpiece now….it still has a sound, but it is not nearly the piece it once was. It was heavily refaced at least a dozen times. Although in its prime that mouthpiece was an amazing player, discretion was lost and the owner (not me) got carried away. I think the moral of the story is this: If you feel compelled to reface a mouthpiece over and over again, perhaps your actions are worth noting….perhaps the mouthpiece’s intrinsic playing characteristics are not for you…perhaps it is best left alone…for someone else to appreciate. I would have loved to be the lucky recipient of that old Henri (in its prime), but it was not meant to be…

On the other hand, assuming a mouthpiece has not been worked on too much, it should have a lot of room/material for adjustment.

How much room? For refacing, clients frequently send me 1970’s vintage “Egyptian” model Chedevilles (with the scrolling at the base) that are marked MO (medium open). Typically they have a very open tip opening at around 126….or 1.26mm…(Artie Shaw’s tip opening was 1.24 for what it is worth). They play terribly. But with a good facing they can be quite nice. I find that a schedule of about 102-104 tip, 5.5, 12, 22, and 35 as a basic facing works quite well for me and for my clients. After I have closed these mouthpieces down nearly a quarter of a millimeter, restored the side rail thickness, reshaped the tip rail to match a reed’s tip shape, and sculpted the baffle for better sonority and response, there is still plenty of material to work with. I should mention that the angle that the facing is cut into the body does grow slacker by between 15-30 minutes, but it plays. That is a lot of material removed and there are dozens of facing possibilities between the open facing and the closed one. I use this example to illustrate that many mouthpieces have lots of material to work with.

On that particular blank, I could then open it back up and then closed it back down once more (not that I ever would)…there is that much material. Indeed it would be a different mouthpiece at that point, and it probably would not be nearly as good as it was earlier on. At that point the angle that the facing is cut into the body would be about five degrees, 30 minutes and much more slack than I prefer. With baffle work, one can maintain the relationship/geometry of the reed to baffle but the baffle to bore relationship/geometry would be irreversibly altered. (Interestingly Zinner mouthpieces are even slacker at 6 degrees 15 minutes! But they play for many clarinetists around the world).

You may be thinking: why does the angle of the facing change in relation to the body? When a mouthpiece is closed down, refacers have the option to torque the table and therefore close the mouthpiece quicker and remove less material. The consequence is that the mouthpiece angle changes a slight amount in your mouth (the angle of the clarinet becomes slightly more horizontal) and the angle that the reed meets the baffle changes by the same amount. Often refacers select this course of action because it removes less material from a mouthpiece.

Weighing the consequences of a slacker facing angle versus much more material removed, becomes the task of the refacer. Either option can prove success, but experience and discretion will usually be the best guide. Similarly a mouthpiece can be opened up by torquing the butt end of the mouthpiece when making a table pass. This allows the entire facing schedule to open up without touching the curve. A mouthpiece can be closed down by working the table without torquing the butt, or the top of the table (nearer the window opening) and this is a good way to maintain the mouthpiece’s geometry. It is important to note that any of these options will change, reduce, or eliminate any concavity in the table. Incidentally, refacers can actually flatten a table without changing the tip opening or facing schedule…it all depends on where and how the table is torqued.

Additionally the table can either be flat or concave and this is another important final step. (When I refer to a concave table, I mean that there is a little dip or hollow in the middle of the table). Some mouthpieces have very large concavities (dips) and others have smaller dips. For example, Zinner blanks come with very large dips and Vandoren mouthpieces are made with moderate dips. In my opinion either a flat table or a slightly concave table is best.

What does the concavity do? Well that is a big question…the table is offers a whole world of discovery. The application of the concavity is an art form all to itself, and there are many points of view. Many refacers today prefer flat tables but the majority of mouthpieces in their original state were made with concave tables. The concavity was developed during the era of wood mouthpieces and it remains in common use today for mouthpieces of all kinds of material. A well made concave table can allow for a very different feel and sound. Because the concavity creates a well defined fulcrum for the reed’s vibration, it will invite a different kind of resonance. Response can be snappier and a wonderful three dimensional sound that allows for the instant and fluid transition from straight tone to vibrato can be one of the greatest results of a well made concave table. Concave tables can tend to make me want to bite more, but when the facing is properly balanced to the table, this feeling is either reduced or eliminated. Often concave tables create a sound that is a little bit less reedy and a bit darker or warmer/deeper. But they can take some of the intense focus that some people prefer out of the sound. Flat tables on the other hand can create a secure playing platform with little or no unnecessary bite. The response is reliable and may have a little more zing in the sound. Flat tables create a lot of tonal center and hold to the feel. Either way, a flat or a concave table must be appropriately balanced to the facing curve and chamber. The table must work in harmony with the rest of the mouthpiece. If making a concave table, it is generally best to start with the table and then apply the facing to balance.

Brad Behn
http://www.clarinetmouthpiece.com

Avail. Forums | Flat View

Newer Topic | Older Topic

Topics