 The Clarinet BBoard
|
Author: tracymiller
Date: 2006-03-18 23:58
I noticed that there's not much posts on Lee Livengood's Mps. And he doesn't have a website advertising them. So before I try calling him, could any of you who are using his "Kasper" model give me any information on the tonal characteristics, etc. Or maybe you could suggest good handmade Kasper Mouthpieces made by other top notch makers. Thanks!
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Synonymous Botch
Date: 2006-03-19 11:53
Lee's stuff rocks.
He's hard to reach because of the demand for his time from professionals.
(That's not us now, is it?)
Of equal stature are makers like Walter Grabner, Chris Hill, Dan Johnston etal.
If you can't reach Lee now, imagine what it will be like in twenty years when you want it refaced...
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Alseg
Date: 2006-03-19 13:19
I had a Livengood Kaspar, and it was nice. Given my 'druthers, I like **WALT GRABNER's **better (own opinion)
I prefered Walt Grabner's model as it played a bit more easily for me.
I still have my Walt Grabner 15. Very reed friendly, as are Greg Smith's.
Actually Walts was better than some original Kaspars that have come and gone in my arsenal
(insert disclaimer of commercialism here.......)
I need to keep on hand a variety of mouthpieces (Pynes Smiths Lomax Hawkins Vandies Fobes and a nice Gennusa Ched that Ben Redwine made for me....etc) to accomodate and test barrels, including Greg Smith's line which is also a great option.
That being said, I also trialed a Behn Vintage Kaspar, which is a whole other animal, and achieves the Kasparesque end point in a way that handles differently, and kept his Ched as my main squeeze.
One big thing about any of these....the reed has to be right.
Former creator of CUSTOM CLARINET TUNING BARRELS by DR. ALLAN SEGAL
-Where the Sound Matters Most(tm)-
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Bill
Date: 2006-03-20 14:56
It's great to read Alseg make the statement "the reed has to be right."
I feel like few clarinetists acknowledge that variable. We talk about reeds, but no one discusses how, unless the reed and mouthpiece are "talking to each other," a working set-up is not achieved. A reed can be in fine shape and a mouthpiece can be perfect, but sometimes they don't work together. Not the failure of either element.
I feel clarinetists need a movie - just as CA wineheads got "Sideways." So many choices, so many different sounds! And so many elements impacting each.
Bill.
(P.S. I think a Pyne is the "pinot noir" of mouthpieces ... for those of you who saw the movie ....)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Alseg
Date: 2006-03-20 16:01
Thanks, Bill.
To make sure I expressed it properly, what I meant was:
Do NOT take the reed that works with your old xxx mpc and trial it on the new yyy mpc.
Judge each mpc on how it works with a reed that suits it.
Naturally, it is nice if it is suited by a greater percentage of reeds from the box than your former mpc (ie. it is read-friendly).
FWIW I thought Walts Kaspar more reed friendly than Pyne or Lee's, but your mileage may vary....considerably.
Pinot noir? Sure. Personally I like a Petit Sirah....and a nice eiswein for desert.
Former creator of CUSTOM CLARINET TUNING BARRELS by DR. ALLAN SEGAL
-Where the Sound Matters Most(tm)-
Post Edited (2006-03-20 16:16)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Gregory Smith ★2017
Date: 2006-03-20 17:39
Alseg wrote:
"Walts Kaspar more reed friendly than Pyne or Lee's..."
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
This is most probably due in part to the unique, pronounced concavity in ALL zinner blank tables - blanks that pyne and lee do not use - not to mention that reeds are generally harder to find with extreme asymmetry in facings that most pynes are well known for.
The style of concavity that all of the zinner blanks have, acts as a kind of "springboard" keeping the tip area of the reed propped open as well as helping to compensate for the reed warping away from the side rails of the mouthpiece...a constant menace.
Also, the degree to what effect the concavity will have is related to the type of ligature one uses and the degree to which that particular ligature is tightened.
Gregory Smith
Post Edited (2006-03-20 17:49)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Alseg
Date: 2006-03-20 18:39
Ooops.....and yes, Greg's was reedophilic also like Walt's. (again, my non-pro and humble perception.)
Pynes was not, and neither was my original Kaspar (and no, it was not asymetrical).
Former creator of CUSTOM CLARINET TUNING BARRELS by DR. ALLAN SEGAL
-Where the Sound Matters Most(tm)-
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Brenda Siewert
Date: 2006-03-20 18:57
I have to say "Kudos" for Greg and Walt's mouthpieces. Not to mention what FANTASTIC gentlemen they both are. Brad Behn is also a great gentleman and magnificent artisan with his work with vintage mouthpieces. I recommend all three HIGHLY to anyone who wants a good product and a great person with whom to work. They're worth the money!
I haven't tried Lee Livengood's mouthpieces, so can't comment. I've tried and owned a couple of Pyne's and haven't ended up keeping them for any time because didn't find them as satisfying as my Greg Smith Kaspar.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Gregory Smith ★2017
Date: 2006-03-20 19:25
Alseg wrote:
"Pynes was not, and neither was my original Kaspar (and no, it was not asymetrical)."
----------------------------------------------------------
Allan's point well taken but aside:
Many who have commented on their Kaspars have said that their mouthpieces were asymmetrically faced. Well, there is asymmetrical and there is ASYMMETRICAL.
I have posted about this many times before both on this bboard and the mailing list but at the risk of repeating myself once too often:
Kaspar was obsessively concerned with producing symmetrical facings. Whether he achieved that kind of perfection on a consistent basis or not is another subject.
The symmetry was usually off but by a very little here and there but certainly not exploited as a method to purposely produce any given effect unto itself (unlike some modern day makers). This is reliable information coming from those that worked or apprenticed with him from the 1960's through the late 1970's.
It is also true of all my own original Kaspars - the best being those that were almost completely if not perfectly symmetrical.
Also, why would it be that every last "slightly" asymmetrical original Kaspar facing that I straighten invariably plays to mine or to all other's satisfaction?
Gregory Smith
Post Edited (2006-03-20 21:45)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Sylvain
Date: 2006-03-21 03:26
comng back to the original post, I recently had a business trip to Utah and met with Lee Livengood. He is a fine individual and his mouthpieces are as good as it gets. I ended up buying one of his Zinner blank kaspar style. He is also known to make really good bass clarinet moutpieces.
Nevertheless, when dealing with custom made mouthpieces, I feel it is always best to meet the maker in person, so you can go back and forth with him/her (is there any female mouthpiece maker?) and really fine tune the facing to your needs. If you have a reputable maker near you, I would consider buying from him/her first.
--
Sylvain Bouix <sbouix@gmail.com>
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Gregory Smith ★2017
Date: 2006-03-21 04:07
Sylvian said:
"...one of his Zinner blank kaspar style."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
IMO, Lee is certainly one of the finest and most importantly, smartest that I know in the business. He is a fine player...
I was unaware that he was still using Zinner blanks. My understanding was, until your post, that he was of now using the Hill/Chadash blank for his Kaspar or Chedeville style mouthpieces. No?
The last we spoke a month or two ago, in the case of the Kaspar style, he did not care for a complete rebuilding of the Zinner blank, ie, flattening the pronounced concavity out with the Zinner blank only to re-insert a slight Kaspar-style concavity back into the mouthpiece.
He said that there was much too much work and adjustment involved before getting started with the enormous facing and tip- baffle work that follows such major flattening-adjustments.
You perhaps spoke at least briefly with him about any or some of this?
And yes, for that little tweak nearer the end, fly-ins or drive-ins for face-to-face sessions are and have been most welcome to the custom maker - although I and other makers that I've spoken with have done alot of successful building/tweaking via UPS!
Gregory Smith
Post Edited (2006-03-21 04:37)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Sylvain
Date: 2006-03-21 18:35
Greg,
I am still unclear of what distinguishes a Kaspar from a Ched. But I can tell you what I have tried at Lee's. He had both Zinner and CH blanks, but more Zinners than CHs. The table on the mouthpiece I have does have the original concavity, but the rails have defintely been touched. He told me that he sometimes leaves it, but not always. He refaces/plays them until they get to a certain feel that he likes.
I wasn't looking into buying a kaspar style or ched style, flat or concave, just something that felt comfortable. The Zinner "untouched table" just happened to be what felt best for me on that day (Salt Lake City is pretty darn high and everything feels a little weird there).
-S
--
Sylvain Bouix <sbouix@gmail.com>
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
The Clarinet Pages
|
 |
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
