 The Clarinet BBoard
|
Author: salzo
Date: 2009-11-05 20:15
Does anyone know the difference between the 1 and 1* Chedeville style mouthpieces that Gregory Smith is making?
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Paul Aviles
Date: 2009-11-06 13:31
Don't know measurements, but the 1* feels a bit more "open." I actually prefered the characteristic of the sound on the 1 when I went through a bunch but finally settled on a more open Chicago Kaspar.
...............Paul Aviles
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: salzo
Date: 2009-11-06 19:26
Thanks for all of the input. I spoke with Gregory Smith today, he explained the differences, and was very helpful.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: JJAlbrecht
Date: 2009-11-06 20:06
He is great to deal with. I love my Smith Mouthpiece. I also love my Grabner K-series.
Jeff
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Liquorice
Date: 2009-11-06 21:35
salzo, could you please share with us Gregory Smith's explanation of the differences? Thanks.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: salzo
Date: 2009-11-07 00:38
Liquorice wrote:
> salzo, could you please share with us Gregory Smith's
> explanation of the differences? Thanks.
My question dealt more with which was the closer mouthpiece-he explained to me that all of the chedeville types he makes have a medium opening, the difference being mostly in the curve- the typical "close, open" questions are not as relevant as the curve.
i basically wanted to know which would fit me better. He explained to me that his mouthpieces require a lighter reed than I am accustomed to using. i was a bit weirded out when I found 3 1/2 V12s working best for me on his #1, since i am more accustomed to using 4 and 4 1/2 on my M13 and Gigliotti P facing. He said that it wasnt weird at all, that he finds 3 1/2 v12s work best, said I might even want to try 3s.
Very interesting conversation, and felt better getting confirmation that the 3 1/2 were the way to go.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: mrn
Date: 2009-11-07 02:17
The M13 and Gigliotti P have long facings, which is part of the reason they work with harder reeds than other mouthpieces do. They also have close tip openings, which also contribute to their taking harder reeds. (I used to play on Gigliottis.)
Something with a medium facing length (like what I play on now) will generally require something more in the middle, like a 3 or 3 1/2. I generally play on 3 1/2s, for instance (my mouthpiece has a medium-close opening and a medium length).
There's actually a past post of Gregory Smith's on the BBoard where he explains the differences between his different "1" facings.
http://test.woodwind.org/clarinet/BBoard/read.html?f=1&i=183795&t=183367
Post Edited (2009-11-07 02:20)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Gregory Smith ★2017
Date: 2009-11-07 20:26
I've always found the common-place references to open or close, usually referring to a function of both tip opening and length, only somewhat useful - and as far as it goes, relatively crude.
The nuance of the facing's curvature (speed of, degree of, etc,) *especially* in relation to the design curvature or *swoop* of the baffle, is much more important to the overall result of both sound and response.
One can't simply slap well known Kaspar facing numbers on a mouthpiece and accurately describe it as a "K" this or a "K" that - referring to a Kaspar mouthpiece by implication. The inner dimensions are just, as if not more important and the resultant, interactive formula is what counts.
The same applies to Chedeville-styled mouthpieces although adapting the relationship between the baffle and facing in an optimal way that resembles the playing qualities of original Chedville (or Kaspar) pieces has always been my own goal. This necessarily requires having developed something other than a mathematical equation to get a mouthpiece to play optimally.
Since playing a mouthpiece in the context of one's own surroundings (just as playing the repertoire in the context of the ensemble) is the definitive test, the process of actually play-testing each mouthpiece as it is made is an artistic process only as productive and reliable as the mouthpiece artisan themselves.
On edit to add:
Just as key play-testers inevitably drive design of all instrument and equipment manufacture, so too are player/testers of mouthpiece design the final arbiter. After all, they are the professionals with the real-world experience.
Gregory Smith
http://www.gregory-smith.com
Post Edited (2009-11-10 00:13)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
The Clarinet Pages
|
 |
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
