 The Clarinet BBoard
|
Author: afmdoclaw
Date: 2013-12-28 22:49
Based upon comments on this wonderful board I ordered and now have tried a Rico Reserve mpc and I am so impressed that I felt compelled to comment again but from a different perspective (I think). I know that this has been discussed thoroughly in this forum but I would like to present more “food for thought” so to speak. I recently posted elsewhere on this board comments concerning the interrelationships amongst mouthpiece parameters such as tip size, lay, baffle shape and design, and chamber size and shape between saxophone mouthpieces of old (1930-1940’s etc) and modern mouthpieces and the demands created by “competing” for volume in the age of electronic amplification etc. (really changed mpc design). So I thought -- “Frank why don’t you apply your experience to clarinet mouthpieces” (no I am not schizo -- I think-- maybe).
Assumption/observation# 1-- the classic French clarinet mpcs of the 1930-40’s appear to me to be characterized by premium hard rubber, deep baffles (less high partials/overtones and projection), small chambers/throats to focus the air and provide a centered focus (ping but somewhat muted).
Assumption/observation # 2-- the classic French saxophone mpcs of the 1950’s (my current preferred choice) appear to me to be characterized by premium hard rubber, flat baffles (less high partials/overtones and projection), small chambers/throats/straight sidewalls to focus the air and provide a centered focus (ping but somewhat muted). THESE MPCS PLAY WELL WITH A SMALL TIP OPENING.
Assumption/observation # 3-- the classic American metal saxophone mpcs of the 1940-1950’s such as an Otto LInk or a Dukoff appear to me to be characterized by, flat baffles with at most a small rollover at the tip(less high partials/overtones and projection), large chambers/throats/rounded sidewalls that require more air and in turn maybe more volume but less focus (a trait that some prefer-- the “foo foo” boys). THESE MPCS PLAY WELL WITH A SMALL TIP OPENING. As an aside for this discussion--compensating for the baffle and chamber design by using a hard reed with a small tip and a long lay the high partials and overtones can be enhanced by TAKING A LOT of mouthpiece into your mouth. (ala Trane)
Thus the reason for this post:
If you want to play a classic Chedeville designed mouthpiece (as opposed to a "KASPER" style ) of old you need one with a smaller tip and longer lay.
So I had my “da-- why didn’t I think of that before” moment and ordered the xo (100) tip Rico Reserve. It is THE smallest tip clarinet mpc I have ever played. Slapped on a harder reed and it is FUN and easy to play. Now it won’t replace my 70’s Borbeck or Fobes 4L for the majority of the type gigs I usually play, but the RR will be on my clarinet in my practice room.
BTW- I have bought, tried and sold (at a loss) many (too many) mpcs in the Chedeville design by many great contemporary mouthpiece makers (names redacted to protect the innocent-- me!) and I have never been as pleased. Wish I could remember the tip size on the rejected mpcs (but I know not as small as the RR) but with this less the $100.00 invested in this “winner” I am not ready to go back and try the others again ($$).
I look forward to your learned replies.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Ken Shaw ★2017
Date: 2013-12-29 14:01
A mouthpiece works or doesn't work for you, period. Design differences have an effect, but anatomy is much more important.
For my jaw, teeth, lips, tongue, soft palate, ears and way of blowing, I do best on a free-blowing, medium length, slightly open facing (think Vandoren 5RV Lyre) and medium (#3 or 3-1/2) reeds. I've never been able to play on a close tip.
It's not for want of trying. In 1961 at Interlochen, Bernard Portnoy insisted that I switch to a close-tip Selmer B*, which he picked out. I hated it but kept at it for a year, more unhappy every day. I can't tell you what a relief it was to switch to a Chicago Kaspar 15 (1.15 mm tip), which was a bit too open, but a 14 was a bit too close.
I know I'm unusual. Nearly everyone plays a less open tip than I do. Also, I hate back-pressure, which many people like because they can "lean in" on it.
You pick a mouthpiece that works, not one that fits a particular design. Anything more is TMI.
Ken Shaw
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Paul Aviles
Date: 2013-12-29 16:22
Wow Ken, I like the term "lean on it." I think I would say more "push against it," but that's a good description of the feel.
Also, as we've said on the Board many times, the more open mouthpieces give you more flexibility of different tone colors (and more pitch adaptability too). The trade off is that with the flexibility comes the constant effort to maintain a certain tone color throughout. For me, I found that effort too exhausting and prefer the nice, compact timbre to be more rewarding.
...................Paul Aviles
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: DavidBlumberg
Date: 2013-12-29 22:45
Back in 1996, at the FAME Music festival, I played the Brahms Trio with other Faculty Members, and was told by a Cello Teacher Colleague who teaches at the Manhattan School of Music, who was glowing that she had never heard a Clarinetist with as many tone colors as I had.
That was with a Gigliotti P facing (closed!!) Mouthpiece.
http://www.SkypeClarinetLessons.com
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: afmdoclaw
Date: 2013-12-29 22:48
Ken
I agree with you about tip size is a personal preference based upon all the parameters you mentioned.
I read my initial post again and despite its wordiness and failed attempts at humor, I don’t think I clearly elucidated my ultimate hypothesis and opinion.
It is not the tip size and/or lay with respect to the player
but
the tip size and lay with respect to the mouthpiece design.
Unlike some of the best saxophone mouthpiece makers and designers (Theo Wanne,(1) Ralph Morgan(2) (RIP) etc) not all but some clarinet mpc gurus seem to be somewhat secretive about the important design features(3). CL mpc makers like to describe their work with comparisons (Chedeville style or in the spirit of a Kasper etc) and that is very helpful IF you know what the design features of Chedeville or Kaspar and how they impact a consumers choice of tip and lay options. Some clarinet mpc makers ascribe subjective descriptive attributes (velvety, dark core, bright ping, etc) that we all use to describe tone but rarely agree on their validity.
For example:
Fobes- gives tip size and lay measurements but baffle and chamber designs on his “special blanks” are proprietary. (justifiably so because his mpcs are very special IMHO)
Pillinger provides very informative tip/lay information but other design features are mainly descriptive. (Disclaimer- never tried his clarinet mpcs but own and play his mpcs on soprano (great mpc) and alto (when I rarely play alto with the Symphony).
But the mpc maker that only provides six or so options with only limited details about the differences is probably doing a disservice to their potential customers AND to their bottom line. Same for makers that provide options such as “close tip, long lay” or “open tip, short lay” etc.(4) However, there are some resources that try to quantitate the terms (Vandoren’s site).
I have digressed a little here.
My enthusiasm after playing the Rico Reserve xo mpc that compelled me to write that long (too) post was based upon a personal epiphany that small tip/long lay facings on vintage style clarinet mpc (as with a vintage sax mpc as described in the first post) is (IMHO) optimal to capture all of the classic design features.
Simply,
the design of the baffle and chamber
dictates
optimal tip/lay combination.
Again, I look forward to reading your opinions-- only way to be enlightened.
__________________________________________________
1. Theo’s site contains very detailed information about design factors and the pro and con’s of each. Moreover, he describes the design features of the mpcs he sells so that the customer can make a relative informed choice (Yea I know--- uz gotsta play it to make the final decision.)
2. Ralph published articles providing design analysis and even included measurements of important design features.
3. Considering that most custom mpc makers procure their blanks from the same German supplier that makes a limited number of designs unless contracted to do otherwise (Fobes) this seems a little silly to me even when they do extensive modification to the baffle.
4. One reason for describing handmade facings in these terms may be a lack of commitment to specifics because of the millimeter tolerances. However, I must compliment Rico on their facing accuracy -- all three I tried (xo x5, x10) measured dead-on with the my Wanne calipers.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
The Clarinet Pages
|
 |
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
