 The Clarinet BBoard
|
Author: Chris22311
Date: 2007-01-08 18:56
Anyone know if the material on these old mouthpieces are similar to chedevilles?
Chris
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: David Spiegelthal ★2017
Date: 2007-01-08 19:35
Well, it's hard rubber. Is there something magical about "Chedeville hard rubber"? The magic is in the interior design and facing curve --- not the material. I could demonstrate this if we were all in the same room together, but I'll never convince anyone with words alone!
Sorry about sermonizing rather than answering your question.
![[toast]](http://test.woodwind.org/clarinet/BBoard/smileys/smiley15.gif)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Don Berger
Date: 2007-01-08 20:14
Dave's comments are rite! As far as I know, Brad Behn has made a "study" of H R compositions and a Search might turn up more info. Luck, Don
Thanx, Mark, Don
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Vytas
Date: 2007-01-08 22:12
> *** "The magic is in the interior design and facing curve --- not the material". *** <
No kidding?
Vytas Krass
Clarinet Repair
Professional clarinet technician
Custom clarinet mouthpiece maker
Former professional clarinet player
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: David Spiegelthal ★2017
Date: 2007-01-09 05:16
Well, Vytas, I have played (and continue to play) various combinations of materials including the following:
Metal bass clarinet with a glass mouthpiece.
Hard rubber bass clarinet with a hard rubber mouthpiece.
Wood Bb clarinet with a glass mouthpiece.
Wood Bb clarinet with a 'bakelite'-and-metal mouthpiece.
Hard-rubber A clarinet with a glass mouthpiece.
Brass saxophones (lacquered or silver-plated) with metal or hard-rubber mouthpieces.
The ONLY thing in common between the above is that I have refaced (and perhaps modified the interiors) of EVERY mouthpiece I play.
Ignoring the saxes for now, I would defy anyone to consistently guess what material instrument, and/or material mouthpiece I'm playing, in a proper blind test. Not even golden-eared players such as yourself! I wish we could set up a good experiment for you to demonstrate this. But I don't have the money. Anybody know a wealthy philanthropist with some scientific curiosity who is a clarinet aficionado?
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: tictactux ★2017
Date: 2007-01-09 07:39
David,
shouldn't be too hard to set up a test similar to my quiz some weeks ago. (In all fairness, one shouldn't provide two recordings of an identical setup this time...)
--
Ben
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Brad Behn
Date: 2007-01-09 14:50
Until I started making my own mouthpieces I played an old Selmer almost exclusively. They have been around a very long time and their material varies with their vintage. The oldest Selmers were made from very good rod rubber but the interior dimensions were often too big, causing unfortunate tuning issues. If you can find an old Selmer that tunes well, chances are that you have a mouthpiece with great potential. My favorite Selmers (pre-war) were made a little more recently and they posses a wonderful sound that is very focused and deep. They were also made from rod rubber but they had smaller bores and chambers to produce a much higher playing mouthpiece that (for me) requires longer barrels to play 440 pitch levels.
Over the years I have reconditioned hundreds of Selmer mouthpieces and I have found that there is great variation in the material and in the playing experience. I do believe that more modern Selmer mouthpieces can be nice players as well, but they may work best with longer barrels and for people who prefer a more brilliant sound to the very popular covered sound that intoxicates so many.
For the right player, a fine Selmer can be a wonderful mouthpiece and I would highly recommend that they get a close look. I have found that they don’t usually come with very good facings and typically respond favorably to a modern customization/refacing. But like most mouthpieces that have been around a long time, there is great variation in consistency, quality and rubber.
For those that don’t believe the material of a mouthpiece influences the playing experience, I disagree. Different rubber compounds and other mouthpiece materials do make a difference on the playing experience and if matched to the ideals of the player, will help one achieve ones tonal concept with greater ease. Mouthpieces resonate with the reed, and affect the reeds response, sound and feel. Like a double reed that has two reeds that vibrate against/with one another, the mouthpiece too vibrates against/with the reed (but in a much more modest fashion). The nature of the mouthpiece’s material resonance will alter the perspective of the reeds vibration in a way that you, the player can experience. Of course, David Spiegelthal is correct in that the inner dimensions of the mouthpiece have profound effect over the playing experience…and so does the facing.
To answer Chris’ question about the Selmer’s material and its similarity to Chedeville material, that is both easy to answer and difficult to answer. They are both made from rubber. Thank you David for this bit of insight, but it is also worth noting that Chedeville used countless rubber formulae and so did Selmer. I doubt that either mouthpiece company actually put too much stock in the value of their materials but the bottom line for me is that I can clearly experience a difference. Some vintages of Selmer mouthpieces used a rubber formula that was extremely good…almost the same quality as the material Chedeville used during their golden years. So don’t discount the Selmers, as they can produce excellent results.
Good luck on the mouthpiece hunt.
Brad Behn
http://www.clarinetmouthpiece.com
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: skygardener
Date: 2007-01-10 16:06
There was a material test in the 60s that I read about.
Wood, Rubber, Plasitc, Glass. They were all adjusted to the same facing and inner dimentions. During the test they used the same reed, ligature, clarinet, and clarinetist.
They played into a strobascope that measured the presence of overtones in single sounds. Here are the results-
Wood- Very even overtones, strongest at the bottom and gradually tapering off in the upper overtones.
Rubber- Compared with wood, it was louder,in general. Stronger in the lower overtones and quickly tapering in the upper overtones.
plasitc- weak lows and slightly stronger middles, but not ver even in any way.
Glass- this one was strange. It had a strong fundemental, but rather weak mids and then the highs had an amaizing spike in the graph, much high than all the other overtones.
Now, THIS WAS NOT A TEST IN HUMAN PERCEPTION. It was also only testing one of each material- not very scientific. But it is interesting.
I will not get into the "material" discussion that seems to happen a lot here. I just wanted to tell you all about the article.
-S
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: David Spiegelthal ★2017
Date: 2007-01-10 16:14
How can you be SURE that all the mouthpieces in that test were made to ABSOLUTELY IDENTICAL facing and interior dimensions? Nobody can do that, even today, even with laser measuring devices and CNC machines! Even tiny, unmeasurable variations in facing (much less interior) dimensions cause major changes in mouthpiece response and sound. And any mouthpiece maker or refacer will tell you, the material of which a mouthpiece is made to some extent affects the result, in that every material responds differently to the hand and machine tools used to create and face them.
So I submit that such a test as you report is interesting, but far from conclusive.
Now if I could just get those darned potatoes out of my ears......
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: skygardener
Date: 2007-01-10 16:29
It wasn't my test. I already said it was not scientific- there were only 4 mouthpieces anyway. Don't act like I made the variables or designed the test. I just decided to mention it here.
That's all...
-S
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Chris P
Date: 2007-01-10 16:38
What approximate era would a Selmer mouthpiece with the logo just above the tenon be from (also with 'table A' on the table but not inside an oval, 2 ligature lines, and hasn't had much use)? It came with my N69xx and P10xx set - is it of the 'P' series era, or earlier or later?
Former oboe finisher
Howarth of London
1998 - 2010
The opinions I express are my own.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: David Spiegelthal ★2017
Date: 2007-01-10 16:48
Sorry I went off the deep end there, skygardener! I didn't mean to imply that you had anything to do with the old mouthpiece test, and you did make it clear you were just mentioning its existence.
In my own defense, experience on the BBoard shows that any bit of scientific (or quasi-scientific) data mentioned here, however innocently (and irrespective of all caveats, disclaimers, waivers etc.) gets grabbed by one of our less scientifically-inclined clarinetists and used as "proof" of whatever point it is they are trying to make. By making an overly strong statement as I did I was just hoping to nip in the bud such a misuse of information.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: skygardener
Date: 2007-01-10 17:14
good. it's settled, then. besides, we all know that mouthpieces made from fossilized palm trees sound the best anyway.v(^^)v
I make mouthpieces, too, so I know that any test that has 4 samples is not enough. We would need at least 10 pieces of each material to have any kind of slightly reliable data.
-S
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Vytas
Date: 2007-01-10 18:38
> *** What approximate era would a Selmer mouthpiece with the logo just above the tenon be from (also with 'table A' on the table but not inside an oval).... *** <
Selmer 'table' mouthpieces are older than Selmer 'Oval' mouthpieces that came with CTs.
IMO 'Oval' blanks are better than the 'table' blanks and this is not because of a rubber formula but rather the bore which is often too big and usually has many chips at the bore entry point (where the bore meets the chamber).
Vytas Krass
Clarinet Repair
Professional clarinet technician
Custom clarinet mouthpiece maker
Former professional clarinet player
Post Edited (2007-06-23 01:37)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Bill
Date: 2007-01-10 22:44
I have many Selmer "bottom logo" mouthpieces with the "table HS" designation. They are the bees' knees with my old Selmer and even Buffet clarinets. For no reason that I can detect, one "table HS**" rubber mouthpiece stands out from the rest and sounds, as Bernard Shaw said of Patti, "like a bee buzzing in a jug."
Sorry for all the bee analogies. I'm not sure what the buzz is on that.
Bill.
Bill Fogle
Ellsworth, Maine
(formerly Washington, DC)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Chris P
Date: 2007-01-11 05:51
It's a shame that every HS* mouthpiece of this type and the one with the oval I've had which came with most old Selmers I've bought has been badly altered beyond recognition (looking like they've been refaced by being dragged behind a car doing 90 on a concrete motorway) as I'd have liked to try out an HS* of this era in it's recognosed form.
Former oboe finisher
Howarth of London
1998 - 2010
The opinions I express are my own.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Bill
Date: 2007-01-12 15:16
Chris,
I was unable to locate an off-line email for you. I'd be glad to let you try one of my Selmer HS mouthpieces. It would not be for sale, just a loan so that you could play it and see how they are. I'd just ask that you not reface (or damage) it, and that you return it within a couple of months.
Bill.
Bill Fogle
Ellsworth, Maine
(formerly Washington, DC)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Alseg
Date: 2007-01-12 17:15
I will second Vytas's comment and add some personal experience:
Properly reworked, the oval HS* is a great mouthpiece.
The older regular HS* mouthpieces are good, too. esp. the green patina ones.
I heard, but can not substantiate, that silica was a component in the Selmer material, mixed into the hard rubber.
Experience:
I received a tackle box of old Selmers, sent to me by a very prominent clarinetist (think: as big as they come) who is always looking for a nice mouthpiece for his students (nice guy...looks out for his students). Since he liked-and bought from me- a Lelandais that Vytas Krass aligned and sold to me via that innominate auction website, I sent these Selmers to Vytas.
The results are remarkable. The pro player has not replaced his old (insert cherished vintage name here) mouthpiece with one of these, but retained one as a backup. The "table HS* " models did indeed have a wider outlet, but tuned reasonably well (with a taper bore barrel). The other bores matched up nicely.
Aside from the obvious Boston symphony group, there were quite a few well respected clarinetists who consistently used the selmer mouthpieces.
Abe Galper of the Toronto symph. recorded on an HS* .
Former creator of CUSTOM CLARINET TUNING BARRELS by DR. ALLAN SEGAL
-Where the Sound Matters Most(tm)-
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Chris22311
Date: 2007-01-12 17:37
Wow, this thread went as far as I was hoping? Thank you VERY MUCH B.Behn for your professional feedback. I am a very big admirer of what you are doing in regard to replicating old school rod rubber and am awaiting new models to come out!
D. Speigel you seemed to have some misconceptions of my question? while I do agree that the inner dimensions, facings, etc. are more important in terms of flexibility in one's playing I found it a bit naive for you to disregard the compositions of a mouthpiece. A great mouthpiece can only go far being plastic (like a nice m15 for example), however traditional Professionals are always in pursuit of a very ringy tone that these old school mouthpieces offer. I just found your response to be rather insecure (you decidingly sermonizing) rather then appropriate to what I started this thread to be. Never assume ANYTHING.
My teacher M. Nuccio has had some great selmers refaced, and I brought this thread for that reason. Thanks all for your feedback.
Chris
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Chris22311
Date: 2007-01-12 17:44
Dear Bill Fogle,
Wow, sounds great! I actually LIVE near you. However, I am currently located in NYC for lessons. It would be great to meet a local clarientist in Northern VA. Please email me at christopheryou@yahoo.com. I am very interested!
Chris
Chris
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Chris22311
Date: 2007-01-12 17:45
err, that was directed to another chris... how many posts is this in a row?
Party foul?
Chris
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Chris P
Date: 2007-01-12 17:58
A classic example of a Chris cross!
Former oboe finisher
Howarth of London
1998 - 2010
The opinions I express are my own.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Chris22311
Date: 2007-01-12 18:03
Haha, I think you spell it KRIS KROSS. (wow, that was 5th grade...)
Speaking of old school mouthpieces, does anyone know what Marcellus played on in his Szell years? I think I heard he played on a Cicero Kaspar, but I would imagine maybe a Lulandais? Anyone know what facing and tip opening? Figured there be a few Marcellus students on board to answer...
Chris
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: David Spiegelthal ★2017
Date: 2007-01-12 18:33
Dear Chris22311,
I may be totally WRONG about the effects of mouthpiece material (and many on the BB believe I am wrong); but I'm hardly NAIVE, as I've refaced and modified literally hundreds of mouthpieces, including many of plastic, crystal/glass, wood, and various metals besides the standard hard rubber ones (and even there, many different formulations of hard rubber). Without bragging, I can tell you I've made some very good mouthpieces out of every sort of material listed above -- however, some materials are much easier or harder to work than others; some are poorly molded (i.e. most plastic mouthpieces) and thus require a lot of interior rework to play acceptably; and in the final result some materials are not durable or dimensionally stable.
So pardon my 'sermonizing', and while I may be wrong, I do speak from personal experience and not from ignorance or prejudice. I didn't misunderstand your question at all, I just extended the scope of the discussion a bit (because it's fun, and that's one of the great things about this BB!). So, in the famous words of Steve Martin,
"EXCUUUUUUUUSSSSSSSSSSSE ME!"
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Chris22311
Date: 2007-01-12 18:38
D. speigel,
Calm down sir! I forgot you invented the clarinet. Thanks for reminding me!
Chris
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Alseg
Date: 2007-01-12 18:54
Well Chris,
I strongly suspect you have a very good mouthpiece.![[wink]](http://test.woodwind.org/clarinet/BBoard/smileys/smilie3.gif)
And...there are more on the way.
That tackle box has enough frequent flyers miles on it to go to the moon.
As far as material goes, I will not enter the fray, except to state that all the good material in the world does NO good if the facing and internal structure are not equal to the task.
Former creator of CUSTOM CLARINET TUNING BARRELS by DR. ALLAN SEGAL
-Where the Sound Matters Most(tm)-
Post Edited (2007-01-12 19:45)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Chris22311
Date: 2007-01-12 20:03
Alseg,
If I am guessing correctly, we are talking of the same tackle box. I tried a few of those, and they turned out great. I will probably end up purchasing the closed MP. Funny how small this world is!
Chris
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Alseg
Date: 2007-01-12 21:01
It is the tackle box from New Joisey that ate New Yoik
Holds six lures
Great for bass fishing.
or...
Holds six mouthpieces
Great for used selmers
Right now it is winging its way to
another part of Joisey. When it
returns, I am sure you will be
one of first to know.
more info sent to you privately off of the BB
Former creator of CUSTOM CLARINET TUNING BARRELS by DR. ALLAN SEGAL
-Where the Sound Matters Most(tm)-
Post Edited (2007-01-12 21:04)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: CPW
Date: 2007-01-12 21:13
Ah say, son, that boy is as sharp as a bowlin' ball
(Foghorn Leghorn cartoon quote)
.
.
.
AH say what we have here is communi-Kation without
knowin that yer communi-catin.
.
Ah mean, Dave Spiegenthal and Vytas Krass are
agreein' !!!! Yessir day is.
Dey is sayin dat da interior and facin is mo important dan de material
and futhamore, dey sez along wit Bradmeister Behn --who cloned da D eN Ay
from the old becs dat den the material matters after the rest is coshure.
Am Ah raight??
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Vytas
Date: 2007-01-13 01:00
> *** Am Ah raight?? *** <
Not quite so! The material makes all the difference in the world. This is where I disagree with Dave and I'm not talking about different materials like wood and hard rubber for instance. If someone can not hear the difference in tone between these two than sorry, you have potatoes in your ears + ear infection. I'm talking about the same type of material like hard rubber. Softer hard rubber formulation sound completely different than the hard one. Very hard HD formulation like steel-ebonite sounds "glassy/crystal clear" which is a bit too much in my opinion. VERY SOFT hard rubber formulation sounds absolutely unacceptable (same applies to the VERY SOFT wood). For instance cocobolo barrel or bell sounds completely different than granadilla. Most players notice the difference immediately. Of course those who can not hear any difference immediately demanding scientific proof, double blind test and etc.
IMO what Brad Behn tells about the material is the fact and it's not at all a witchcraft as some potato heads are suggesting. (I'm not associated with Brad Behn in any way. I don't even know the guy). People with golden-ears are more likely to bring something new and exciting into the clarinet world. Everything else is not important. Just empty speech.
The material is not acoustically transparent. It does make a difference!
Vytas Krass
Clarinet Repair
Professional clarinet technician
Custom clarinet mouthpiece maker
Former professional clarinet player
Post Edited (2007-01-13 02:49)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Alseg
Date: 2007-01-13 02:34
I think Foghorn Leghorn is a-sayin' (sorry, couldnt resist) that:
Material matters, but no material in the world can compensate for a poorly executed facing and interior. BUT...given a great design, proper facing and voicing, good material will definitely make a difference. AND....good material can in some part compensate for a suboptimal facing/voicing/magic of the file-reamer-gadzillion grit paper, but BOTH the material and the workmanship are what make a great piece.
Having now written my longest sentence ever, I retire to play on my
instrument. Tonight I will use a plastic First Act stock mouthpiece, artistically refaced by my local cobbler, and carefully measured using a Playskool Fischer Price ruler, calibrated to quarter inches. Yeah!!! Living large.
Former creator of CUSTOM CLARINET TUNING BARRELS by DR. ALLAN SEGAL
-Where the Sound Matters Most(tm)-
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Brad Behn
Date: 2007-01-13 16:12
Marcellus played a variety of Kaspars and an O’Brien glass mouthpiece for a short time in the Cleveland Orchestra (Szell confronted him about it and he eventually went back to rubber). His facings were medium in length and medium open at the tip. Some people would argue that his facings weren’t all that open at 1.07 to 1.09, and 33-35 length, but compared to today’s common Zinner renditions frequently below 1.00 and 31, Marcellus’ mouthpieces measured much more open. Indeed the material and the designs of the current Zinners versus the old Chedeville made Kaspar mouthpieces are very different.
When it comes to the merits of material, I also hold the opinion that the material is only as good as the design will allow. That is why I hold reservation about many of the old Selmer and Chedeville mouthpieces. Even though they may have been made out of excellent rod rubber stock, many of them had chamber and/or bore dimensions that wouldn’t allow them to play at their fullest potential. But on the other hand, if you acquire one that has smaller dimensions (something to work with) the potential is enormous. Why, because the material possesses a unique visco-elastic framework that allows the reed to vibrate in a way that produces a terrific feel and sound. Can I prove this…I don’t need to. It is so obvious to me and many others that the scientific exercise would (for me at least) prove an unwise us of time and money. That is not to say that science and research is unimportant. Having recently gone through an extensive rubber analysis that lasted more than four years I too believe that scientifically controlled testing can be a vital part of any endeavor.
Interestingly, the side data accumulated from my rubber analysis gave me much additional proof that different materials can profoundly affect the playing experience. During my rubber compounding R&D phase, I had many different rubber compounds/cures made into rod. I then submitted them to a series of tests to learn more about their acoustics. After their lab-work, I had a bunch of additional unused material hanging around so I decided to make a run of 12 mouthpieces from 6 different rod rubber materials. I wasn’t surprised to experience differences in the playability of each mouthpiece. In the mix were two white-Delrin mouthpieces and 6 pairs of mouthpieces from different rubber formulations. The Delrin mouthpieces played poorly. The rubber mouthpieces all had similar playing characteristics in that they all sounded good, but they each had different sounds and feels that I could fairly easily discern. All the mouthpieces mentioned here were made with the same program using CNC machining to produce copies as identical as I possibly could. The merits of these non-scientific tests were that I was able to personally confirm that continued testing was worth-while and that the direction I was headed in was correct. I had not created my ideal material yet and I continued with my rubber compounding R&D program for another year and a half.
In my experience, material has an amazing effect over the playing experience. Just because there isn’t sufficient public scientific evidence to prove the influences mouthpiece material has over the playing experience, that doesn’t mean material doesn’t matter. It simply means that we don’t have scientific evidence to prove something. I remember as a kid being amazed to hear that scientifically a bumble bee shouldn’t be able to fly. I was told that the mass of the bee versus the area of its wings and rate that it flaps its wings should not allow for the sufficient lift to make it fly. I don’t know if this is an old “wives tale” or if it is fact, but it did open my mind to the magic of life. Science helps us understand our reality, but it doesn’t necessarily define our reality. What we know comes from a combination of subjective and objective truths that (usually) harmoniously coexist. When they clash, the exploration begins.
On a final thought, I find it an amazing experience to explore the unique potential of different mouthpieces and different materials. So, rather than closing your mind to the potential discoveries in ones personal playing experience (as influenced by different materials and designs), I would like to suggest that you try for yourself. Don’t let anyone bully you into a certain line of thought. Use the wonderful assortment of quality offerings out there as an opportunity. You can make your own “scientific” study to find your best playing experience.
Brad Behn
http://www.clarinetmouthpiece.com
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Gregory Smith ★2017
Date: 2007-01-13 18:44
Behn wrote:
".... but compared to today’s common Zinner renditions frequently below 1.00 and 31, Marcellus’ mouthpieces measured much more open. Indeed the material and the designs of the current Zinners versus the old Chedeville made Kaspar mouthpieces are very different."
---------------------------------------------------------
I don't know about which "common" modern day Kaspar renditions from Zinner products are being spoken of here, but my own Kaspar-style mouthpieces are indeed of the same measurements as the very Kaspars that I measured and inherited from Marcellus.
After being intimately involved with the Woodwind Co.'s attempt to machine-copy Marcellus' final Cicero Kaspar mouthpiece that he played from 1968 until his retirement and untimely death almost 30 years later, I came to know a sufficient amount about his and other Kaspar mouthpieces during that period by observation and hands-on experience.
Any knowledgeable & responsible mouthpiece maker knows that the facing curve is directly interactive with the interior dimensions of the baffle and chamber of the blank. That is why for the most part, simply comparing just facing numbers from one type of blank to another is comparing apples to oranges.
The *recipe* of these several different factors is what constitutes the mouthpiece's capabilities as whole, a very small part of which is material - moulded or rod (one can always take the last assertion as an article of faith or of science depending on what they *want* to believe).
That is why the Zinner mouthpiece blank, at least in the version that I have custom designed for me before received and worked on, plays with shorter facings and closer tips for my Chedeville-style model - the shape of the large chamber and swoop of the baffle being the determining compensatory factor for the shorter facing and closer tips. The point is that they don't feel or sound like short or close mouthpieces due to a plethora of other factors.
If one put the regular, commonly used facing numbers of any Selmer, Chedeville, or Kaspar mouthpiece on a *stock* Zinner blank, the result would not be a mouthpiece possessing "medium" characteristics, rather it would be something resembling that of a saxophonish-feeling mouthpiece similar to those mouthpieces preferred by those who double on clarinet in non-symphonic settings. The vibrating reed would be much too far from the baffle to focus the sound with anything other than an extraordinary amount of biting. It would be much too wide-jawed or spongy for most symphonic players.
As I have mentioned numerous times before both here and elsewhere, ANY overall recipe (mould or rod material included in that very small part the recipe) is every bit as legitimate a means to an end as "exact" copies of anything from any period of clarinetistry. At the end of the day, the proof is based on what comes out of the other end of the instrument.
Who would be willing to say that the great players of the past century *wouldn't* prefer the modern day Zinner design and material as THEIR magic recipe in contrast to some mouthpieces being presented today effectively as simple museum pieces?
Times change. Players' demands change. Demands from the top modern players in orchestral settings changes. Progress is a fact of life that many will have to learn to live with to make way for the next generations of top performers and the modern day requirements of the modern day performer and performance standards.
Replicating the past in a retentive fashion is not what many top professionals whom I know are interested in. Tipping the hat to these players and their mthpcs of the past? YES. Copying them per se to the 'nth degree? From my extensive observation? A decidedly, overwhelming, and emphatic NO.
From my POV, that's just simply the real-world minus all of the previously posted happy talk and ad copy dressed up in the form of "information".
Gregory Smith
http://www.gregory-smith.com
Post Edited (2007-01-14 08:53)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: David Spiegelthal ★2017
Date: 2007-01-13 20:37
Does Cordier (or any other maker) make an intra-aural potato extractor I could borrow for a bit?
Thanks in advance....................
Monsieur les Oreiles de Pommes de Terre
Virginia, USA
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: L. Omar Henderson
Date: 2007-01-14 02:52
Dave - I will gladly lend you my oral pharyngyl shoe extractor even though it has seen very heavy use it is a practical thing to have handy around the BB and should also work on spuds. At this late hour it is not worth inserting another shoe even though the material business has been way over hyped with inaccurate scientific claims (which real data countermand) and physics concepts that have never met a peer review - size 12 EE.
L. Omar Henderson
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: kilo
Date: 2007-01-14 14:28
How old do these Selmer 'pieces have to be to be "old school"? I have an HS** that I bought in 1970. Not very loud, but it's always met my needs.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Brad Behn
Date: 2007-01-14 15:26
In my opinion, Selmer Bass mouthpieces are best from the oval stamp era and earlier. The rubber is good during the oval stamp era and has a very different sound than more recent renditions, but the dimensions of their Bb mouthpieces during the oval stamp era created a rather sharp playing mouthpiece which could easily be adjusted with a longer barrel. I prefer the sound of the rubber in Selmers that pre-dated the oval stamp era and had the Selmer logo beneath the bottom ligature line. But if you get lucky and find a “table” designation with the centered logo between the top and bottom ligature lines you may have a gem. For a very short period of time, Selmer used this “table” stamped blank and it can be designated as having a long beak (that extends almost to the top ligature line). The earlier “table” stamped Selmers that had the Selmer logo beneath the bottom ligature line were made out of good rubber and they can be very nice mouthpieces as long as their interiors were not made too big. Before the “table” series (with the round Selmer logo as it remains today, beneath the bottom ligature line) Selmer used a variety of logos that ranged from a larger version of today’s logo to a simple H SELMER stamped beneath the bottom ligature line. These mouthpieces were made out of very good sounding rod rubber and are very different than anything they have made in a long time. They can be terrific mouthpieces.
But even if you don’t have a mouthpiece as old as the Selmers discussed here, the bottom line is if you are happy with the sound you are producing, that is all that matters. I have experience working on many modern Selmer renditions and they are perfectly fine mouthpieces that produce a nice sound. I imagine if you had a modern Selmer and an old Selmer you would detect a difference in the sound and the feel of the mouthpiece, but there is no need to go out of your way to acquire a different mouthpiece if you are happy with the one you are currently using. No need to throw that monkey wrench into the equation…
On the other hand, to those that still search for something in their sound, the old school Selmers can be a wonderful place to explore. In my opinion, the rubber used in their old models (coupled with chambers and bores that aren’t too big) produced a sound that is superior to anything they have made in a long time. Also something to consider is the fact that many people don’t value Selmer mouthpieces like Kaspars or Chedevilles so one can easily acquire an old one on Ebay for a small price. Just be careful to get one that hasn’t been refaced to death…
Good luck on the mouthpiece hunt.
Brad Behn
http://www.clarinetmouthpiece.com
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Don Berger
Date: 2007-01-14 16:03
Many TKS to Brad and Greg Smith for their "dissertations" on Selmer mps, etc. We all profit from these expert discussions. I inherited a Johnston-Selmer sop mp along with a '30s Geo. Bundy cl, and have NOT had any refacing done, by others or even myself. I'd gladly loan it, Brad or Greg, if it might contibute to this Sel mp "search" and would like any info known. Don
Thanx, Mark, Don
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Gregory Smith ★2017
Date: 2007-01-14 16:14
Don -
Aside from your generous offer (which I don't have the time to take you up on), I did get a little off-subject in my post. But some unfortunate things stated here in error are in obvious need of clarification.
BTW, to my knowledge, Selmer is the only modern day machined mass produced mouthpiece still made from an in-house formulation of rod rubber. Most of the machining process is done with a series custom made machines designed and built by a master craftsman from the ground up, all performing a different task. The end result is a completely finished mouthpiece by machine from the rod.
The process is quite secretive (Selmer is notorious for this) but is a testament to their own belief in using rod rubber. Selmer mouthpieces don't make up that much of the world market but that's probably due to the design concepts re: dimensions that they are unwilling to experiment with.
Gregory Smith
http://www.gregory-smith.com
Post Edited (2007-01-14 17:30)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Chris22311
Date: 2007-01-17 00:49
sorry to bring upt his post again, was away from the internet for this past weekend. But I just wanted to point out that someone had mentioned that top tier orchestra players are not THAT interested in replications of great old mouthpeices such as chedevilles and kaspars.
From my expereience, every (successful) professional clareintist I have met or studied with owns a great ancient. While old mouthpieces will get worn down, all pros strive to access at least one model mouthpiece in which they base what feels good for them. If a mouthpiece came out as successful as an old lulandias, wouldn't all the pros flock all over them?
Chris
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
The Clarinet Pages
|
 |
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
