 The Clarinet BBoard
|
Author: DougR
Date: 2006-03-02 01:46
I have no playing experience with either, and my questions are:
-how is one distinctive from the other, in terms of sound quality, projection, playing characteristics? What adjectives would you use to differentiate them (assuming that's possible, and it may not be) or, simply, to DESCRIBE them?
-who in clarinet history would you point to (again, assuming it's possible) as a Chedeville player vs a Kaspar player? Who can I listen to, to develop a tonal sense of each mouthpiece?
I'm asking because there's getting to be a plethora of Chedeville and Kaspar-ish mouthpieces out there (or direct copies of same) and it's getting me interested in acquiring one, but I have no real idea of what they sound like or what sort of vocabulary one would use to describe them.
(I did a search, but didn't find anything that seemed to address these questions directly.)
Any help, suggested recordings etc. much appreciated!
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Bassie
Date: 2006-03-02 07:12
Interesting link, GBK. In general, what is the effect of mpc bore shape? All I know is that my 'favourite' mpc at the moment is noticeably more cylindrical than its compatriots.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Hank Lehrer
Date: 2006-03-02 11:39
DougR,
Your quesation is one that I have had for some time. I have played neither a Kaspar or a Ched although I have a really great Buffet C Crown that some say is very Ched-based.
I suspect that some of the less coveted MPs in my stable like a Stowell Wells Schneider B2, a Riffault 4, and maybe even my beloved original Portnoys BPO2s have many of the same characteristics. Perhaps players that will post to this thread will include comments on some of the more classic Kaspar and Ched wannabes that I mention above. There are a lot of older Bay players out there also that seem to love those pieces.
But then, when we get into dark and light as well as focused sound we become more subjective and less definitive about what you see to be asking. One other dimension could be that I am a doubler and play a lot of jazz-type jobs so my take on this is totally different. When I played for my pal Sheri a few weeks ago she described my SWS sound as too bright for her (she loves her Bay but has recently bought a Grabner and the generic WWBW Zinner).
BTW, in an email several years ago from B. Portnoy, I asked him is he was trying to copy the Kaspar or the Ched and he said "No..." Actually, his answer was more lengthy and colorful but I can't remember all of the exact words. I wish I still had that email.
HRL
Post Edited (2006-03-02 17:11)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Gregory Smith ★2017
Date: 2006-03-02 13:41
Without question, there are distinctive differences in the dimensions, both inside and out of both types. Without question there are many different dimensions of each type that make them difficult to categorize, even within the same type - although one can make general dimensional observations about both. There are historical reasons for this as well as practical ones which are too lengthy to go into here.
Without getting too much into the inevitable subjective comparisons about the playing qualities of both types and the ad copy that seems to go along with many an advertisement for each, I had a conversation about the same subject as a young student with my teacher, Robert Marcellus, some 20 years ago that helped me understand one player's perspective on the subject.
When I asked him why he ended up playing Kaspar mouthpieces for most of his rich and distinguished career instead of a Chedeville, he gave me his own, subjective answer. (One has to remember that he played both types along with a crystal mthpc and Meloir early on during his tenure with the Washington National Symphony Orchestra as well as the Cleveland Orchestra. Personally, I can't tell you what type he was playing because he always ended up sounding like himself no matter what mouthpiece he played).
He summed it up succinctly, as was his style, by observing: "The Kaspar is a blue collar, working man's mouthpiece. Chedevilles are a little too blue-blood for me."
Of course that was his individual perspective and it's dangerous to universalize that statement in order to squeeze it into an application about one's self. I always took it for what it was worth, considering it to be one person's opinion, but fortunately for me had the perspective and understanding of the man and his music-making from which that opinion flowed.
Gregory Smith
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: William
Date: 2006-03-02 15:10
Hmmm....I thought that Kaspar made most of his (now) famous mouthpieces from Chedeville blanks and that he was more of a refacement technician than a manufacturer. The Chicago Kaspar that I play was made form a Chedeville blank (one line up, three lines down), the same as my "Ann Arobor" Kaspar that I keep in reserve. I've also thought that most players of Chedeveille mouthpieces did not play them "right out of the box" but elected to have had them refaced to their own specifications. Frank Kaspar mouthpieces, however, were already hand finished and ready to play.
Ultimately, however, as even "hand finished" mouthpieces from the same manufacturer or person will never play identically, it would be impossible to absolutely define playing characteristics of either the Cheds or the Kaspars. Some clarinetists will generalize and say that Cheds are "darker" and Kaspars are "brighter" (in tonal quality), but you really have to play each mouthpiece and decide for yourself. And, in the end--as Greg Smith correctly reported--you will most likely play with the same sound (your own, as dictated by your unique oral configuration and inner tonal concept) no matter which mouthpiece you finally decide plays best.
What you really want to look for in a mouthiece is not so much it's sound, but rather its tonal eveness in all registers, how easily it articulates, its intonation on your instrument and if it helps you to "sing" through your clarinet with varied (and tasteful) dynamic contrast. Playing in tune, rhythemically correct and with impeccable (or acceptable) musicality is where it is really at--and that is up to you, not your equipement. However, having the mouthpiece, reed, clarinet, etc that will allow you to more easily be at your best is helpful in acheiving your musical goals, so audition as much equipement (mouthpieces) as you can and good luck with the search--it may last for your entire career.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: D Dow
Date: 2006-03-03 01:42
The bore at the barrell on Chedeville Lelandais is somewhat smaller than the Kaspar and therefore also in turn creates a somewhat different spectrum to the tone....on top of that the "dimple" in the centre of the upper baffle of the Chedville also causes the sound and tone not only to emit differently but also respond in a different was from the Kaspar configuration.
As to preferences...(regressing here) my teacher Harold Wright regarded the Kaspars as somewhat less of a mouthpiece but more as a copy of the Chedeville line.
That being said he also respected the Kaspars as well and acoustically felt they presented different issues in terms of intonation and response in other areas of the clarinet apart from the Chedeville line. Tonally very few ears out there can any difference between the two....
David Dow
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Bill
Date: 2006-03-03 19:36
I know the Ch. Chedeville "C/C" emblem. What did "Henri Chedeville" mouthpieces (those of Harold Wright fame) look like? What was the mark?
Bill.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: toney
Date: 2006-03-03 23:24
I am always confused as to why their seems to be an assumption that Chedeville blanks are always one line up and three lines down. All of the old Chedevilles as well as Kaspars that I myself personally own (save for one cicero) are one line up and two lines down, and the kaspars are all chedeville blanks for sure.
I am simply wondering where this assumption seems to come from as I have seen it on many posts throughout the years. Is their an actual theory behind this assumption or is it just an educated guess? I would truly like to know if anyone has concrete and theoretical info on this..............
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Gregory Smith ★2017
Date: 2006-03-03 23:37
"He [Marcellus] summed it up succinctly, as was his style, by observing: "The Kaspar is a blue collar, working man's mouthpiece. Chedevilles are a little too blue-blood for me."
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I have arrived home after a matinée concert today having received numerous communications about the meaning of this statement from my earlier post. I'll try to do my best deciphering what he may have had in mind.
Knowing his personality (being his student for 4 years and his colleague and friend for 15) my read on that statement was along the lines that for him, the Chedeville style was too staid, colorless, lacked guts, or wasn't capable of helping him exude enough passion (and wow did he exude passionate playing in the repertoire that he chose to play!), which he believed the Kaspars did so in spades.
AGAIN - that is not a statement in absolute terms. One cannot and must not universalize this statement. It is the opinion of Robert Marcellus. Just because he liked Kaspars and played Kaspars most of his career doesn't mean that if you play a Kaspar style, replica to the 'nth molecule, (or even his own mouthpiece!), that you will then possess the personal qualities available to YOU that ONLY HE alone possessed.
NOR DOES IT MEAN that if you decide to play a (Henri or Chas.) Chedeville replica to the 'nth degree or Chedeville "styled" mouthpiece, that you will sound more like Harold Wright!
It is positively dehumanizing and truly sad to see this type of thinking not only sent in my direction but to see it as a method of choosing styles of mouthpieces as part of ad copy from commercial mouthpiece websites and other forms of promotion. It is based on a false premise that one goes on when assuming these preconceptions. There are so many other, more important factors to consider.
That's the best that I have to offer everyone that inquired.
Gregory Smith
Post Edited (2006-03-04 00:29)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
The Clarinet Pages
|
 |
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
