 The Clarinet BBoard
|
Author: DAVE
Date: 2006-05-17 03:24
I was wondering if anyone here knows what the common measurements are that were originally on the Kaspar mouthpieces. Were they all fairly typical numbers like 34, 22, 12, 6, 112? Of course the tip measurements differed, but did he (they) vary the other measurements very much?
The reason for this query is the measurment on my Kaspar Ann Arbor. My mouthpiece came from a well known mouthpiece guy who did work on it and the measurements are somewhat unusual as far as my knowledge of Kaspar mouthpieces. They are 36+, 23, almost 12, 5.5, 105; (these measurements are not firm but rather squishy, meaning that the gauges do not "hit" the numbers but kind of slide into them. This is something I have noticed on other poor playing mouthpieces...Care to comment on this? Anyone else notice this?) I guess now after writing that my thinking is that the 36 is off or at least not original. This mouthpiece plays with a very brittle and forced bright sound. Initially I liked the responsiveness and was maybe taken in by the Kaspar mistique, but now I think the piece is unusable.
Which leads to my next point. When refacing people do work on classic mouthpieces, do they somehow feel bound to honor the original intent of the maker or does the refacer take liberties and essentially fit the mouthpiece to his preferences? I suppose it is entirely possible for someone to have a Kaspar in name only: a mouthpiece that Kaspar himself would not recognize.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Vytas
Date: 2006-05-17 04:23
There were two Kaspars. Your mouthpiece was made by Frank L. Kaspar, the senior. His mouthpieces have deeper baffles and usually not as open as the Cicero Kaspar. I don't think that Frank L. Kaspar, the senior used just a medium facing 6, 12, 22, 34. I had two older Ann Arbor mouthpieces in my collection. One of them had medium and the other long facing similar to what you just described 1.09; 5,11+,23,37. To my knowledge both facings were unaltered. The younger Kaspar used slightly asymmetrical medium facing.
Vytas Krass
Professional clarinet technician
Custom clarinet mouthpiece maker
Former professional clarinet player
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Gregory Smith ★2017
Date: 2006-05-17 05:48
About Frank Kaspar and some *slight* asymmetry once in awhile:
http://test.woodwind.org/clarinet/BBoard/read.html?f=1&i=211528&t=211326
http://test.woodwind.org/Databases/Klarinet/2000/10/000592.txt
http://test.woodwind.org/Databases/Klarinet/2000/10/000609.txt
Not deliberately or purposefully.
*
Also, being a bit of a purist and perhaps honoring the artistry of the original creators, once a Kaspar has been touched it is no longer purely a Kaspar. It may be a Kaspar/Hill, Kaspar/Livengood, etc.
Same with a Buffet clarinet. While Brannenizing makes an instrument more of a Buffet by basically undoing or enhancing what the manufacturer is unable or unwilling to do at the factory line-produced level (make the clarinet seal, make sure that the pad seats, that there are no wood chips in the tone holes, etc,) alternatively putting a Backun barrel or bell on it makes it a Buffet/Backun clarinet. The original intent of the maker is not enhanced but changed to something else the artist did not necessarily envision.
If Buffet wanted their clarinets to play with cocobolo with those dimensions, they would manufacture them that way. If they wanted the whole clarinet to be made of Greenline material, they wouldn't just make the bell or barrel out of that material and offer it as an add-on. That's why they send them out made of all Greenline material - bells, barrels, and all.
Same with Vandoren mouthpieces. The minute Vandoren found out that one of their artists were "improving" or "hand-finishing" their mouthpieces and reselling to other players, they were upset to say the least...and to keep their sponsorship, that artist was instructed to stop or be dropped...the philosophy at Vandoren that all of their mouthpieces are perfect. Each one just needs to find the right individual.
Right.
Gregory Smith
PS. The "sliding" or lack of traction of feeler gages as they settle between glass and facing shows a lack of what is commonly referred to as "trueness" of the facing curve and is a result of either a sloppy application technique or, on older facings, warpage in the facing of some sort.
Post Edited (2006-05-17 07:59)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Synonymous Botch
Date: 2006-05-19 00:12
How new are the feeler gauges?
If the edge has a raised burr, the measurements will appear short.
If the edge is relieved, it will appear long.
Lastly, if it plays well - what do the measurements matter?
If you're a player, is not the object would be a great sound without strain?
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: BobD
Date: 2006-05-19 09:13
Like many tools that man uses, feeler gages and measurements using them require a proper "touch" .
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}
