 The Clarinet BBoard
|
Author: ThatPerfectReed
Date: 2011-07-13 00:54
Ok. Many of us won't agree that Chedeville's best mouthpieces were/are in fact the best money can buy, at least for the clarinet.
Some of us might agree the Chedeville was "the man," but his mouthpieces varied widely across production years, not unlike the wine of a fine winemaker, from one season to another.
Some of use might even think certain production lines of Chedeville's, like maybe the ones made for Buffet, were especially good (or not.)
What I'm interested in knowing is who people think makes the best Chedeville-like mouthpiece, otherwise from Chedeville's best work, today.
Is it Ridenour...Hawkins, something from Vandoren...etc.
Drucker always raved about his Chedeville (he had 3 backups made I'm told) like it was his secret weapon. I was thinking of treating myself to one, and wanted to know which version of the mouthpiece was Chedeville's best, or who best approximates it today.
Thanks...
Remember--let's all respect each other's opinions here, as from 3 clarinetists can come 12 opinions sometimes.
Do you think something far better than Chedeville? The would be interesting too.
Yes--we are all different. Some may hate Chedeville's. I respect that too.
For what it's worth, I play a Vandoren B45 and have never played a Chedeville. So I come with no preconceived notions.
I'm not asking how to indentify a Chedeville. An excellent thread on that already exists as one of the "keeper threads."
Many thanks!
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: JJAlbrecht
Date: 2011-07-13 02:07
Gregory Smith makes GREAT Chedeville style mouthpieces. He is greatr to deal with, too. I am VERY happy with the one he made for me,.Excellent tone and works great with my clarinets.
Jeff
“Everyone discovers their own way of destroying themselves, and some people choose the clarinet.” Kalman Opperman, 1919-2010
"A drummer is a musician's best friend."
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Clarimeister
Date: 2011-07-13 05:56
I'm adding another +1 to Gregory Smith from CSO. He makes fantastic Chedeville AND Kaspar style facings for his mouthpieces. I've actually wanted to own one of his Chedeville styles for years now but could never afford them. I'm actually about a week away from receiving some to try once again and I couldn't be more excited! He is also the easiest person to work with next to Clark Fobes IMO. Bradford Behn also makes his blanks from rod rubber like Chedeville did way back when. They're really expensive and I've only heard a couple people rave about them, but they loved them. Still cannot wait for my greg smith pieces!
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: TianL
Date: 2011-07-13 12:54
I guess each of us has different preferences and so our opinions can be very different.. for me, I didn't specifically like Greg Smith's mouthpieces. The notes in lower register below the open G felt insecure (especially between C and F). I had the same issue with the Hawkins. They both do have a very nice sound though. I've also tried the Backun, Behn, some Vandorens (of which my favorites are M13 lyre and the new Master CL4), and I felt they are more secure feeling than the Smith and Hawkins. But that's just my opinion.
That being said, I've never had a chance to try a (good) real Chedeville.. so who knows, maybe the real Chedevilles play just like the Smith or the Hawkins!
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: rtmyth
Date: 2011-07-13 13:27
I bought a Chedeville in Boston in 1953. Played it for many years ( still looked like new,; double lips ; so no teeth marks). Harrison gave me two ligatures for it, about 15 years ago. A well-produced M13 is pretty close, in my experience.
richard smith
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: J. J.
Date: 2011-07-13 15:57
Honestly, this is a pretty ridiculous question. No mouthpieces today are remotely like a Chedeville because of all of the factors that go into a mouthpiece. Those marketing theirs as "Chedeville-like" or "Chedeville style" are doing so with dramatically different mouthpieces.
Furthermore, as you mentioned, the playing characteristics of Chedevilles over the course of their existence were different, not to mention the differences between individual mouthpieces. Some people liked a particular era, others liked another. Searching for the most Chedeville-like mouthpiece today is a pointless search, especially for someone who is not coming from years of playing one themselves.
You will not get a suitable answer to your question from this thread. Really, it won't happen. Start trying the best mouthpieces available today, regardless of their marketing, and pick what works best for you.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: ThatPerfectReed
Date: 2011-07-13 18:12
>>You will not get a suitable answer to your question from this thread
I beg to differ. It seems from the above posts that some think, that some of the mouthpieces out there that can be bought new, come pretty close.
"Others" (I won't mention any names) think that only a Chedeville finished at 10:24AM on 6/20/1947 plays like a Chedeville finished at 10:24AM on 6/20/1947.
Both, I believe, are respectable answers that leave this poster, and hopefully others, better informed--hence the concept of their being no ridiculous questions. And in my book--going into this question knowing I'd have varied opinions--I think i got--to use your vernacular--suitable answers.
..but that's just my opinion (wink), respecting yours....
Yes--posters that ask what side of the reed goes on the mouthpiece, or posters who don't at least try doing a due dilgence search here before posting a common question can be trying--but others who pose questions that don't have a one best way clear answer, whether they do so unintentionally or by design, promote, I think, the opposite of rediculous: informed discussion.
If nothing else, based on your comments, now I know that if I want to buy a Chedeville, that finding a player with a similar setup to mine, who loves their actual Chedeville (not a knock off), but is willing to part with it, might be a good place to start.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: JJAlbrecht
Date: 2011-07-13 19:54
One thing that distinguishes the ggod Cheds from other mouthpieces of that vintage (aside from the actual rubber used to make the blank) was the way the chamber, bore and facing are desgned. While modern pieces may not be "true" Chedevilles (whatever that might mean), many of them make successful efforts to replicate the quality of sound and the playing experience one had with the actual Cheds, without having to resort to the lottery of whether the one they buy on EvilBay or somewhere else (for some ridiculuosly over-inflated price) actually plays similarly and offers one the playing characterists he/ she wishes to have.
Jeff
“Everyone discovers their own way of destroying themselves, and some people choose the clarinet.” Kalman Opperman, 1919-2010
"A drummer is a musician's best friend."
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: kdk
Date: 2011-07-13 21:37
ThatPerfectReed wrote:
>
> I beg to differ. It seems from the above posts that some
> think, that some of the mouthpieces out there that can be
> bought new, come pretty close.
>
The problem is that unless a responder has played on a true Ched enough to have a good idea of its qualities, he/she has no way to compare the new mouthpieces to the original Cheds. Your original question seemed to be which modern ones are most like the originals. But without a point of reference, even discounting whether the reference Ched in question is a good one or not, most of what you're getting are simply opinions about the current mouthpiece makers' products. I like Greg Smith's mouthpieces. I also like Grabner's, Fobes's, Hill's, Gigliotti's, and several others that (may or may not) advertise that they are based on a Chedeville model. But I only played a real one for a couple of months 40 years ago and I really couldn't say if any of these modern ones plays like it did.
Karl
Post Edited (2011-07-14 00:16)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: ThatPerfectReed
Date: 2011-07-14 00:56
I agree Karl.
It was presumed that if responders to my question had an opinion, that they had a basis upon which (i.e. they've played or know those that have played their share of Chedeville's) to form it. Maybe I should have expressed that explicitly.
Your nevertheless pointing out, by analogy, that you can't "compare today's Miata to a 1970's Chevelle (notice, by design, the car brand and mouthpiece name's similarity) unless you've driven both, is an informed and worthy caveat on your part.
Thanks.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: clarinetmc
Date: 2011-07-14 14:00
I had the opportunity to try a number of original and untouched Chedevilles and Chicago Kaspars recently and feel that Richard Hawkins makes an especially great mouthpiece which has qualities of both. His mouthpieces especially resemble the Chicago Kaspars and are really reed friendly...if interested, you should contact him about a trial. I've tried most of the well known mouthpiece brands on the market and his mouthpieces just work for me, but as you know, mouthpieces are a very personal and specific component to an individual's playing, so they might not be what you're looking for, but totally worth a try!
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: The Doctor ★2017
Date: 2011-07-14 18:32
(Disclaimer - My corporation owns the name mark and trademark for Chedeville internationally)
A couple of pseudo answers - The Kaspar's used Chedeville rod rubber machined blanks in the beginning for their mouthpieces later they used blanks from Raffault and Babbitt. We do not know what the aspects of these blanks were now because the Kaspars made their own modifications to the chambers, baffles, and throats of these blanks. There are many devotees of the various geographic sites that the Kaspars worked at over time but there are differences in any given mouthpiece modified by a maker’s hand.
As Clark Fobes suggests there are several variations of the Chedeville mouthpieces. Only those made prior to WWII were machined from rod rubber. This rubber formulation too was variable over time. The later Lelandais mouthpieces through the 1960's were all molded. In the transition after the war there were still old stock Chedeville blanks being sold with both Chedeville and Lelandais logos and even after the molded mouthpieces appeared the logos remained the same. There are of course two Chedevilles - Charles the owner in France and nephew Henri in Philadelphia PA USA. Henri received blanks from Charles and made his own personal format mouthpieces as well as selling bulk to the military in different formats, while Charles made several variations of his signature Charles Chedeville mouthpieces and used several variations of his blanks to make mouthpieces in many different configurations for instrument manufacturers such as Buffet, Bethoney, etc.
So, there are many variations of old Chedeville mouthpieces just as there are many variations of Selmer and Vandoren mouthpieces which may suit a particular player or not. Therefore I guess that you could say that there is not a particular group of distinctive elements contributing to tone that one could tease out of the Chedeville or even Kaspar mouthpieces because there are so many different examples of each. Also, when speaking of tonal aspects there is no objective set of descriptors understood by the woodwind community.
L. Omar Henderson
www.doctorsprod.com
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: ThatPerfectReed
Date: 2011-07-14 20:34
Mr. Henderson--very informative--thank you.
Were some earlier Lelandais posibly produced from rod rubber too?
I ask because many say that it was the original rod rubber designs that played such a key role in why the mouthpiece--granted among many other factors--was so special.
You see, when you say "the later Lelandais" I don't know if you are referring to a post-war brand that was an offshoot of Chedeville, or if "the later Lelandais" is meant as a comparison to the "older Lelandais:" the newer ones made from molds and the older Lelandais (should such a thing exist) possible being made from rod rubber.
(This is not a plug for proper grammar--I'm just confused.)
It's curious to me because Drucker plays a Lelandais he's quite fond of, and yet, could this imply that it must have been a molded mouthpiece, not the more sort after rod rubber--because Lelandais were only made as molds?
It's more a history lesson for me than a determining factor in purchase. I think we all agree that the person makes the playing, not the mouthpiece: as critical as the latter can be. And that guys like Drucker could have still been geniuses using other mouthpiece brands, while the finest Chedevllle/Lelandais in the hands...err paws of my dog, won't make much sound at all.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: The Doctor ★2017
Date: 2011-07-15 01:27
Same disclaimer.
Lelandais bought out Chedeville and took over in post war 1946 - 1947. There were old stock Chedeville blanks around which were pre-war and were machined from rod rubber stock. Some were still marked with the Charles Chedeville logo and were sold by Lelandais after 1947 and some unlabeled machined hard rubber blanks were labeled with the Lelandais logo and sold post 1947 too. Some unlabeled old Chedeville blanks were OEM made for various instrument manufacturers post 1947 too.
Lelandais made molded mouthpieces after 1947 - 1960's labeled at times with the Charles Chedeville logo and some times with the Lelandais logo. The Lelandais company and remnants of the Chedeville company were bought by Glotin in the late 1970's but only produced one mouthpiece labeled Charles Chedeville in 2003 which was machined from a recreation of Chedeville rubber and faced by Chris Hill. These however were not a commercial success.
Today Brad Behn, Chadash, Chris Hill, and the Chedeville Group make mouthpieces out of machined hard rod rubber in their own styles and some recreations of authentic old Chedeville mouthpieces (only Chedeville Group) Many custom mouthpiece makers use various molded blanks to recreate their old Chedeville "Style" mouthpieces.
L. Omar Henderson
www.doctorsprod.com
www.ChedevilleMp.com (August 1)
Post Edited (2011-07-15 01:32)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: kdk
Date: 2011-07-15 02:46
How do you tell from its appearance if a mouthpiece is made from rod rubber or molded?
Karl
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Chris Hill
Date: 2011-07-15 05:50
The 2003 Glotin Chedeville mouthpieces were machined for me to my specifications, which was a copy of my 1930's Charles Chedeville, and I did hand finish them. I made 160 of them at the request of Glotin, but unfortunately, they stopped all of their clarinet-related operations shortly after that, and never purchased the majority of them. I wouldn't say that they were "not a commercial success," as much as Glotin simply stopped all clarinet projects before they really got started selling the mouthpieces.
Currently, I make a recreation of an old Charles Chedeville, and an old Henri Chedeville. I think that one of Brad Behn's models is also a recreation of an old Chedeville. Guy Chadash is no longer making mouthpieces.
Going back to the original question, it is more important that you find the mouthpiece that plays best for you, than the one that is most Chedeville-like.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: The Doctor ★2017
Date: 2011-07-15 11:10
Same Disclaimer
Chris, thanks for the amplification about the Glotin senerio. At ClarinetFest in Utah 2003 it was a sensation. I did not mean to imply that your participation was in any way associated with the later situation with Glotin stopping production and advertising.
I believe that Brad Behn says that his Vintage mouthpieces are "inspired" by his own Chedeville mouthpieces with his own take on "improvements" of the original design. Many old Chedevilles were optimized for the clarinets of the pre-1950's design which now need some additional modification for "modern" instruments.
In my experience it is extremely difficult to get the internal measurements of an antique mouthpiece precise and we had to resort to a multiple X-Ray CAT Scan (Computer Assisted Toography)with digital reconstruction to get it right. Chris, as you know refining the CNC process to get the proper translation of measurements also takes a long while to produce a quality mouthpiece and even then it must be tweaked by a master mouthpiece maker to reach full potential.
L. Omar Henderson
www.doctorsprod.com
www.ChedevilleMp.com (Aug. 1)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Brad Behn
Date: 2011-07-15 12:49
"I believe that Brad Behn says that his Vintage mouthpieces are "inspired" by his own Chedeville mouthpieces with his own take on "improvements" of the original design. Many old Chedevilles were optimized for the clarinets of the pre-1950's design which now need some additional modification for "modern" instruments."
I would like to take a moment to clarify Omar’s statement above. The hard rubber rods, which I manufacture, are produced only for me and are available to no one else. My hard rubber comes from a four-year research project where I worked with scientists who are leaders in the field of rubber science. My rod rubber is an exact recreation of 1930's era Chedeville rubber from an Henri Chedeville mouthpiece which I deemed to be particularly good.
It is important to note however that many Chedeville mouthpieces from the pre-war era and on were poorly rendered, or had issues such as bores which were too large, or too conically rendered, baffles which were too deep or too shallow, so in my desire to make the best mouthpiece possible, I decided to use the sum of all of my mouthpiece knowledge to make a Chedeville inspired design. I evaluated countless mouthpieces from the golden era of Chedeville (1930’s), I determined which design elements worked and which design elements were problematic (such as a chamber which was too large, common on Ch.Chedevilles of that era) and therefore I created my designs as perfected entities.
My clarinet mouthpiece designs were created as an amalgamation of many successfully rendered Chedeville desigs of the thirties. And here in lies the difference; Omar is making a mouthpiece, which I understand is to be a copy of a singular mouthpiece design.
Brad Behn
http://www.clarinetmouthpiece.com
Post Edited (2011-07-15 13:41)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: The Doctor ★2017
Date: 2011-07-15 15:24
Brad, thank your for the information and I appreciate your work.
I too have a proprietary rod rubber recreation of old Chedeville rubber analyzed by the state-of-the-art instrumentation at the world's most renown laboratories (CDC here in Atlanta and Dayton OH) and chemistry is my stock and trade with an understanding of the limits of our scientific techniques and measurements.
To say that any new vulcanized rubber is an exact duplicate of an antique rubber sample is a stretch in terms because no one can duplicate the materials, machinery, or know the manufacturing conditions used by Chedeville or the subsequent changes brought about by time. There is also good speculation that Chedeville got rod rubber from one or several rubber manufacturing plants in Paris at a time where manufacturing conditions were quite variable.
Today's rubber manufacturing process uses a more purified latex than was available in the 1930's which contained organic and particulate contaminants which definitely alter the cross linking pattern and therefore the properties of the rubber and the latex itself came from non-hybrid rubber plantations in a different part of the world than today's latex, and from native growth trees. As in fine wines there is a terroir or sense of growing place and growing conditions as well as after processing with latex used in rubber manufacture which modifies its properties.
We can only approximate the cross linking patterns of old rubber samples because they are governed by the latex itself, impurities, types and amount of catalysts used, the cycles of heat and pressure and subsequent tempering stages. The rubber industry has new instrumentation and techniques for establishing a crosslinking pattern fingerprint in a rubber sample for quality control practices. Physical characteristics of flexibility and hardness measurement of rubber samples are also standardized. We can make all of these measurements as well as test for acoustic properties but no one can exactly duplicate an antique rubber. After WWII rubber and mouthpiece manufacture changed significantly and most mouthpieces today are molded from a different materials formula than used to make the antique vulcanized rod rubber.
Also, what we are viewing in an antique rubber sample is a snapshot of the degradation state of the rubber. Sulfur crosslinking bonds (sulfur was used a catalyst) are not strong bonds and start to break between latex monomers and polymers the minute the rubber is produced. These altered crosslinking patterns are not reproducible in fresh rubber manufacture. Rubber degradation may depend on many factors including UV light exposure, temperature, and storage conditions. Today UV inhibitors and stabilizers are used to make vulcanized rubber last longer but if you are old enough to remember the old car tires that would "rot" over time and exposure to the elements you have a sense of old rubber degradation.
I guess that we are lucky that some of the Chedeville rubber produced 80 years ago remains intact and with good acoustic properties but it is not the same rubber now as it was when produced in the 1920's - 1930's. Rubber produced today will not have the same qualities in 80 years either. But again, no one can duplicate an antique rubber exactly.
There are many aspects that determine the tone and playing properties of a rubber mouthpiece. In my opinion the architecture and finishing of a mouthpiece are the most important factors with the qualities of the rubber somewhere down the list of importance.
L.Omar Henderson
www.doctorsprod
www.ChedevilleMp.com (Aug 1)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Brad Behn
Date: 2011-07-15 19:19
Hello Omar,
Thank you for your clarifications and perspective. Congratulations and best wishes as you introduce your new product.
I understand your comments above but find them somewhat unfortunate as they suggest that it can't be done. But I disagree.
Bradford Behn Proprietary Rod Rubber shares the same manufacturing process and resonance characteristics as my original Henri Chedeville mouthpiece. It is a recreation of the original. I am aware that rubber changes over time and I took precautions to deal with this issue. I am also aware of the other considerations you outlined but found solutions. My desire was to recreate the wonderful resonance characteristics of my mouthpiece and this led me down a path of discovery and helped me understand what the material's physical characteristics are important to the playing experience. I now have the knowledge to temper my proprietary rubber formulation and cure to create a desired effect in the playing experience and will venture to do this in future projects. I have already made sample rubber rods with varying hardnesses and densities, and created different visco-elastic tendencies in prototype form. I have CNC manufactured mouthpieces out of Delrin, Acrylic, Ultem, Behn Rubber, Epoxy, and rubber of other sources all to witness, learn, and research. I to had and continue to have the full arsenal of state-of-the-art analysis and manufacturing processes at my disposal (not the CDC but a formidable laboratory nonetheless), I am not a chemist. I am not a scientist. I am a humble musician who understands his limits and therefore developed practical knowledge of mouthpiece manufacturing, design, artisanship, developed a purpose, undertook to find worlds leading rubber scientists, worked very hard to achieve an exact recreation, and three of my four Vintage Collection designs are clear real and authentic recreations of Chedeville designs of the thirties. The fourth design stretched the limits and explored a vision. Three more proprietary designs are entirely unique by virtue of their patented geometry improvements. They are all CNC manufactured and hand finished by me from the same source material: Behn Proprietary Rod Rubber, which is authentically recreated 1930's era Chedeville rubber. All 100% made in the USA.
Brad Behn
http://www.clarinetmouthpiece.com
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Red Chair
Date: 2011-07-15 19:51
Brad Behn wrote:
> I am not a chemist. I am not a scientist. I am a humble musician who understands his limits
I am greatly enjoying this discussion but I'm not sure Mr Behn does understand his limits as he states. If he truly did understand his limits (and chemistry) I think he would see the flaw in his statements.
I have two questions however regarding the rubber that you both have developed. Are you using Babbitt, Zinner, Zinner and Vandoren's supplier New York Hamburger or another rubber maker to supply your requirements?
Omar also mentioned sulphur which I understand (in a very limited capacity) has a big influence on the rubber, and with this in mind I am wondering how you have got round this issue due to today's health concerns with this chemical?
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: The Doctor ★2017
Date: 2011-07-15 21:15
Same disclaimer
Red Chair - sulfur is everywhere in the environment and elemental sulfur is not very toxic. Some of the combinations - aka acid rain or sulfuric acid are toxic. Actually there are more efficient catalysts but sulfur in excess was used to make the original Chedeville rod rubber. Both Brad and I have rod rubber custom made to our specifications from scratch - raw latex - and have experimentally developed a vulcanization and tempering schedule for heat and pressure to make our vulcanized rod rubber. We both use CNC machining to make a semi-finished blank that must then be tweaked to completion.
Brad - I think that we both wish each other good fortune, health, and success in all of our endeavors. I must disagree with your suggestion that the antique Chedeville hard rubber can be exactly duplicated. I myself can only say that what I have developed is a close approximation of the original rubber formulation, structure and acoustic properties. I respect the vast amount of work and experimentation needed to produce a near perfect product. Perfection however must be proven and documented and with my background, experience, access to world class instrumentation and scientific techniques I believe that no one can make an exact copy of an aged Chedeville hard rubber. Neither of us wants to spend the time and wasted effort to prove the other wrong so we must continue to disagree on this point.
We might take a lesson from museum artifacts that have been approved for many years by the world's experts in a particular field and tested in scientific ways only to find that the article is proven to be untrue by a new scientific technique or instrument. From my scientific background I am very suspicious of any absolutes and perfect reproductions which are often proven wrong.
I do respect your talent and skill as a master mouthpiece maker but not an ability to evaluate scientific rubber chemistry or the scientific data produced by others.
L. Omar Henderson
www.doctorsprod.com
www.ChedevilleMP.com (Aug 1)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: doclaw
Date: 2011-07-16 23:16
>
> I do respect your talent and skill as a master mouthpiece maker
> but not an ability to evaluate scientific rubber chemistry or
> the scientific data produced by others.
> L. Omar Henderson
> www.doctorsprod.com
> www.ChedevilleMP.com (Aug 1)
Very interesting discussion and debate between to accomplished professionals.
If I may suggest a civil resolution to your differences--- A PARTNERSHIP -- THE RUBBER EXPERT AND THE SKILLED MOUTHPIECE CRAFTER!
I for one will buy the end product-- a great clarinet mouthpiece.
As the ad says-- just do it
www.abrahamwatkins.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}
