 The Clarinet BBoard
|
Author: ruben
Date: 2019-12-17 13:44
I have neither heard, played nor seen a Chedeville mouthpiece. My question: why are they so legendary? What was so special about them. The postwar generation in the US played mostly Kaspar; in Europe, Vandoren (which is still the case).
rubengreenbergparisfrance@gmail.com
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: donald
Date: 2019-12-17 15:35
Oh you have undoubtedly HEARD one, just didn't realise it at the time. If you would go to the website for Brad Behn mouthpieces he has a well researched commentary on "the French" manufacturer.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: seabreeze
Date: 2019-12-17 17:11
Ruben,
Three famous American postwar players you have probably heard used Chedevilles: Ralph McLane, Harold Wright, and Anthony Gigliotti. Also the most sought after Kaspar mouthpieces were often (usually?) made from Chedeville blanks.
Chedeville devotees said that Cheds--if you get a good one--had a more musical blend of vibrancy and darkness, liveliness and color than most other mouthpieces. The tone was easy to center and the mouthpiece was suited to making pianissimo entrances especially in the upper register and smoothly bridging wide interval gaps. The best Cheds had the quality of well focused projection and full overtone profile even when played softly; they had great presence of sound. They also held the tone well in fortissimo.
Today in US orchestras, Vandorens predominate. The BD5 is a best seller, and Gilad and other influential teachers recommend the Vandoren B40L. Old Henri Chedeville pieces finished in Philadelphia many decades ago still command a high price on the collectors' market. One sold this year on the famous auction site for a little over $3,000. The even rarer crystal glass Cheds may embolden sellers to ask $5,000 or more.
Post Edited (2019-12-17 22:03)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: kdk
Date: 2019-12-17 19:29
There weren't so many mouthpiece designers then as there are today. They were considered exceptionally resonant and clear-sounding, with a strong "ring" and with a good facing had a lively, immediate response.
I think they are legendary mostly in America, where Henri's mouthpieces were the more used because he moved here while Charles stayed in France.
I played one lent me by Gigliotti for a few months when I was a student. The ease of producing a resonant sound was remarkable. I don't know that there aren't equally good or maybe even better ones being made now. Many of today's higher end American mouthpieces are, or claim to be, based on the old Henri Chedevilles.
Karl
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: kdk
Date: 2019-12-17 19:35
seabreeze wrote:
> Ruben,
>
> Three famous American postwar players you have probably heard
> used Chedevilles: Ralph McLane, Harold Wright, and Anthony
> Gigliotti. Also the most sought after Kaspar mouthpieces were
> often (usually?) made from Chedeville blanks.
>
Also "Iggy" Gennusa (at least in his Baltimore days - I don't know if he played his own mouthpieces later) and Don Montenaro, who is heard on some Philadelphia Orchestra recordings after Gigliotti's retirement in the '90s.
Gigliotti started playing on his own signature mouthpieces during the early 1970s.
Karl
Post Edited (2019-12-17 19:36)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: seabreeze
Date: 2019-12-17 20:29
In the US, Chedeville mouthpieces have been copied repeatedly. Just a few names of mouthpiece makers (both famous and obscure) who have offered Chedeville copies would include Paul Dirksmeyer, Chris Hill/Chadash, Gregory Smith, Bob Mario, David Hite, Walter Grabner, Brad Behn, and Dan Johnson. The Vandoren Series 13 (especially the M13, M13 lyre, and M15) are basically copies of Donald Montanaro's Chedeville, the Reserve X series mouthpieces are copies of another Chedeville piece, the RetroRevival Cheds are copies of a Charles Chedeville, and the Jody Espina Chedeville "Elites" are yet another example. The Wodkowski Philadelphia model is one more "inspired" by Chedeville, and there are many others.
Post Edited (2019-12-19 23:21)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Ed
Date: 2019-12-17 21:10
The mouthpieces have very good rubber with a good design. There is a great deal of good info online, especially on Brad Behn's site. When I have had the opportunity to try some particularly good versions I found the ease of production, the ring and focus, depth of sound and the resonance was quite unique and unlike other pieces I have played.
FWIW- while many claim to make copies of Chedevilles or Kaspars, many I have tried bear no more than a passing resemblance. I am not sure if that is due to a difference in material or whether they fell short in some other way.
Post Edited (2019-12-17 21:10)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Paul Aviles
Date: 2019-12-17 21:32
We go back to the "good rubber" but didn't "Seabreeze" just say crystal versions would sell for several thousand.......more? So what's so special about the rubber?
My thought is that they were undoubtedly amongst the best mouthpieces of their day. But I would also say that the material was also the best option ........for that period.
We must come to grips with the fact that the acoustic shape of the standing wave within the tube is the vast majority of the sound we hear from the clarinet at a distance, and perhaps some of the subtle differences "we" the player experience may not make any difference beyond the first immediate few feet.
.............Paul Aviles
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: kdk
Date: 2019-12-17 22:02
Paul Aviles wrote:
> My thought is that they were undoubtedly amongst the best
> mouthpieces of their day. But I would also say that the
> material was also the best option ........for that period.
>
I've always wondered about the rubber they used in the '40s. Wasn't U.S. rubber in short supply during World War 2 and wasn't much of what was available in the U.S. being taken by the government for military use? How available was rubber for civilian use and what quality was it? How discriminating could a civilian user be during that time? Could mouthpiece blank makers, Chedeville among them, really maintain a standard for the rubber they used, or did they have to use whatever they could get?
Of course, things may have changed after 1947.
Karl
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: kdk
Date: 2019-12-17 22:08
seabreeze wrote:
> In the US, Chedeville mouthpieces have been copied repeatedly.
> Just a few names of mouthpiece makers (both famous and obscure)
> who have offered Chedeville copies would include Paul
> Dirksmeyer, Chris Hill/Chadash, Gregory Smith, Bob Mario, David
> Hite, Walter Grabner, Brad Behn, and Dan Johnson. The Vandoren
> Series 13 (especially the M13, M13 lyre, and M15) are basically
> copies of Donald Montanaro's Chedeville, the Reserve X series
> mouthpieces are copies of another Chedeville piece, the
> RetroRevival Cheds are copies of a Charles Chedeville, and the
> Jody Espinosa Chedevilles are yet another example. The
> Wodkowski Philadelphia model is one more "inspired" by
> Chedeville, and there are many others.
>
Yes, and some of those are quite good. The only real way to compare them to the originals would be to play them side by side in real time.
Karl
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: ruben
Date: 2019-12-17 22:15
Seabreeze: I have-and sometimes use-a Mike Lomax Firebird that pretty much fits your description of the Chedeville. In fact, the blank was made by a chemical engineer that attempted to reproduce the ebonite used for Chedeville. BUT: the tone is very bright. -a bit too bright for our present-day tastes. Somebody compared it to a Vandoren 5RV; not a fair comparison in my opinion, for the Lomax is far finer.
rubengreenbergparisfrance@gmail.com
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Bob Bernardo
Date: 2019-12-17 22:41
To this very day, I feel they remain the best ever. We can't forget about Iggie Gennusa who many feel had the very best sound ever. There are others of course that had incredible sounds such as Harold Wright, and Bob Marcellus, but Bob played on Kaspar's. The first Kaspar's were actually Ched's that Kaspar refaced and thinned the rail thicknesses a tad. Sometimes the rails were too thin causing reed tips to squeak.
There are a few players that sound very good, but another problem is the change in design Buffet did to their R13's. Known as the Golden Era. So the sound these masters got was a combination of the mouthpiece and the Golden Era Buffet horns.
Today, I feel the Yamaha CSVR horns are very close to that old Buffet sound, but just close.
The Chedeville's today are not the same. Horrible in comparison. I have a few old Ched's and Kaspar's. People that copy these have failed. I won't say who these people are. I've tried pretty much all of the copies, The measurements are not even close to these old mouthpiece measurements. It's actually a shame that these people claim to have copied these old Ched mouthpieces. They shouldn't advertise and say that. But I guess false advertising is legal. The best Kaspar mouthpieces came from Cicero, a city just outside of Chicago. Some of the Chicago Kaspar's were also very good as these were also Ched's, but not all of them. The worst made were the Ann Arbor Kaspars. The baffles are too shallow.
I don't think it is the rubber, because of testing rubber for about 40 years. However, this rubber is special and it's still available. But it's not what makes these so great, it's again the measurements.
Rumors are some of the older mouthpieces from Buffet and other companies were Chedeville's. From my research and also from buying a lot of mouthpieces, this is not true. I haven't found any mouthpieces that are truly Ched's.
You also have to have a very keen eye for these Chedeville's. A lot of them were never stamped. Yet others had an 8 marked in the botton right side, but if you look closely the 8 are actually a C and inverted C, so they look like an 8! These are the only markings on these mouthpieces.
People can write to me with questions. My goal is to protect people from spending 1000's of dollars on a FAKE!
Last comment - There were 2 types of Chedeville's. The Charles Chedeville and the Henri Chedeville. Both mouthpieces were from the same mold. The Henri Ched's sometimes get a higher price, but this is due to his limited production.
Designer of - Vintage 1940 Cicero Mouthpieces and the La Vecchia mouthpieces
Yamaha Artist 2015
Post Edited (2019-12-17 22:46)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: kdk
Date: 2019-12-17 23:54
Bob Bernardo wrote:
> Last comment - There were 2 types of Chedeville's. The Charles
> Chedeville and the Henri Chedeville. Both mouthpieces were from
> the same mold. The Henri Ched's sometimes get a higher price,
> but this is due to his limited production.
Did Henri make his own blanks, or were they made by Charles and shipped over? The current Chedeville website seems to imply that Henri got blanks from Charles and finished them here.
Karl
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: seabreeze
Date: 2019-12-18 00:02
Ruben,
Lomax and Jim Kanter both have made mouthpieces from the Omar Henderson blank that was supposed to duplicate the rubber in the old Cheds.
(Guy Chadash and most notably Brad Behn have also developed rubber types that they believe reproduce the qualities of the old Cheds). Henderson was a chemist but not a successful mouthpiece designer (though skillful artisans like Lomax and Kanter could turn the blanks into something playable). He eventually sold the rights to the Chedeville name, along with his proprietary rubber formula and mouthpiece specs, to Jody Espina, who in turn (I have heard) had to go back to some original Chedeville mouthpieces for measurements and proportions before he released his current line of "Chedeville Elite" mouthpieces.
As for the Vandoren 5RV (or 2RV), some of them could be great, especially the old Diamond Perfecta, on which Louis Cahuzac could sound glorious. In the 1950s, Henri Druart, E. Brunner, Robert Gugolz, Andre Boutard, were all playing 5RVs, weren't they? And, yes, their sound was brighter than today's norm.
Post Edited (2019-12-18 00:44)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Bill
Date: 2019-12-18 00:06
The "Chedeville" mpcs truly sought after are of two types: (1) 1930s rubber (and pre-1930s) made by Chedeville/Lelandais (and stamped with any of scores of labels) and (2) Charles Chedeville mpcs altered by Henri Chedeville. Later Chedeville mpcs (1940s and beyond) are not what are truly sought after when many people speak of "Chedeville" mpcs. Much of the "Qualite Superieure" mpcs are not what is truly coveted. Those were made into the 1970s.
I love them all. I'm just saying that the legend really refers to (1) and (2) above.
Bill Fogle
Ellsworth, Maine
(formerly Washington, DC)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: JEG ★2017
Date: 2019-12-18 02:07
One person not mentioned here is Stanley Drucker, who played on a Lelandais Chedeville his entire career.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: ruben
Date: 2019-12-18 02:13
Seabreeze: I'm impressed by your knowledge of French players, past and present. Are you French? Druart was a great player, with a very personal sound. Karajan hated it! He thought all clarinetists should sound like Leister. When I was a youngster, practically all French clarinetists played on Vandoren 5RV. Until fairly recently, Paul Meyer played on that.
rubengreenbergparisfrance@gmail.com
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: ruben
Date: 2019-12-18 02:17
Bob: What are for you the dates of Buffet's "Golden era"? Do you yourself make a copy of Chedeville? I was hoping you would join the discussion and suspected you would have perceptive things to say. Look me up if and when you come to Paris.
rubengreenbergparisfrance@gmail.com
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: ruben
Date: 2019-12-18 02:24
About 20 years ago, somebody at Vandoren told me that they attempted to copy Chedeville, but that the problem was that no two Chedeville were identical.
rubengreenbergparisfrance@gmail.com
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: donald
Date: 2019-12-18 08:12
Ruben, your friend at Vandoren was correct- there are many different design parameters involved and the various mouthpieces from the Chedeville name (and the many many other names that used a blank from Chedeville- blanks that varied greatly in design and quality).
I strongly suggest reading the Brad Behn information on this- it's relatively brief and general but a very good introduction. And you can trust that the facts he presents are accurate, which is not always the case.
The "good" mouthpieces from the old manufacturers are only an improvement on the modern ones if they have a facing you can manage, and if you are a player who values the qualities they offer. I have several mouthpieces from the pre WW2 era and they all have a much brighter sound, but a brightness that is also warm and glowing. This is a core sound quality that I like and value, but I've never subbed in a section where I would be encouraged to sound like this, and the orchestra I play Principal for has a MD who does NOT encourage that kind of sound.
dn
https://www.clarinetmouthpiece.com/henri-chedeville-mouthpieces
Post Edited (2019-12-18 08:40)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Jarmo Hyvakko
Date: 2019-12-18 15:03
Talking about good-ole-bright-sound i just played one hour in one rehearsal with a modified vandoren m13 13-series. Got memories, how the clarinet used to sound still in early 80s. I asked my colleaque did that sound brighter than usual. I got an annoyed sounding answer "yes, much brighter". I changed back to my usual mouthpiece...
Jarmo Hyvakko, Principal Clarinet, Tampere Philharmonic, Finland
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: ruben
Date: 2019-12-18 20:35
Jarno: let's face it: the bright sound is out. Who knows? Maybe it will come back. Or at least a happpy medium between bright and dark. ps: Nicholas Baldeyrou with the Orchestre Philharmonic de Radio France has rather a bright sound. (Mikko Frank conuctor-your fellow Finn)
rubengreenbergparisfrance@gmail.com
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: kdk
Date: 2019-12-18 21:36
ruben wrote:
> Jarno: let's face it: the bright sound is out. Who knows? Maybe
> it will come back. Or at least a happpy medium between bright
> and dark. ps: Nicholas Baldeyrou with the Orchestre
> Philharmonic de Radio France has rather a bright sound. (Mikko
> Frank conuctor-your fellow Finn)
>
Maybe a tangent that deserves a separate thread, but I suspect that one reason "bright" (if that's really what it is) is out is that it's harder to record than the rounder, less ping-y sounds that have come into favor over recent decades.
I grew up listening to the Philadelphia Orchestra in particular and to Curtis Institute graduates in general. I heard quite a lot of Anthony Gigliotti's playing both live and on recordings. I admired his sound in live performance. It was clear and resonant with a strong core that included a great deal of ring. But when I heard recordings, his tone often sounded to me "bright" and thin, as though he was using a reed that was too soft. This difference was consistent enough that I finally came to believe the difference was that the resonance that I could hear in his live tone wasn't being picked up by the recording equipment. What was left was mostly the ring and a more limited frequency range than I heard live.
I should say that, apart from hearing him in his practice studio (which would have made Toscanini's studio at NBC sound live by comparison) during my lessons, I had the privilege of hearing him in the orchestra on stage during rehearsals and performances in which I was part of the Temple University choir when we sang with the orchestra. In those situations I had the best position for hearing him - far enough away (in the choral risers) to not be standing within inches of him but close enough to hear much more of the total sound than I could hear in the audience in the Academy of Music (which itself had a well-deserved reputation for acoustical dryness).
I know many posters here sometimes say Gigliotti's sound was too "bright." One or two of them live near enough to Philadelphia that they may have heard him play live. But the point for me is that Gigliotti's live sound and his recorded sound were very different and the recorded sound was often very much thinner and more strident.
I did have a few similar experiences with the contrast between the live and recorded sounds of Wright, Genussa and Drucker, but my experiences with Gigliotti's playing were more extensive.
How much influence has the recording process had since the 1960s or early '70s in forcing players of all instruments to mellow out their tone concepts?
Karl
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: seabreeze
Date: 2019-12-18 22:16
Gigliotti has a terrific performance of the Weber Concertino with Philadelpha on the "First Chair" vinyl LP that one of my teachers (a Bonade student who also studied with Gigliotti) said was deliberately made shriller and harsher sounding by a jealous clarinet-playing recording engineer. Whether true or not, it is probable that if Gigliotti had had the services of, say, the sound engineer Sabine Meyer did on her recording of the Nielsen, he would have sounded all peaches and cream.
I think microphones and recording have exerted a great influence on changing clarinet tone. Guy DePlus was quoted in some Vandoren publication saying that the times had changed so much that players had to be on guard and expect anything coming from their instrument at any time may be picked up for posterity by some unsuspected microphone monitor. Paranoid? Maybe not. I believe the designers of the Vandoren B40 and B40 lyre were acutely aware of how the clarinet sound can be distorted by microphones and they attempted to build in some "protection" against this with the thicker rails and other changes to dampen potentially jarring upper partials.
Fashion works in cycles so a suitably altered version of the "ringing" sound could reappear. I have a new BD4 Vandoren that keeps some of the mellowness of the BD5 but has more overtones in the sound and is way easier to blow and articulate. That's what Nicholas Baldyrou has been playing, and I hope they reach the retailers soon so more players can try them. At the Nielsen 2019 competition Ann LePage from France was tending toward a more ringing sound, and though she didn't place in the top three she made the top tier and won a prize for interpretation. Han Kim seems to be alternating between typical dark cover and a much brighter alternative. Joe Christophe, winner of the demanding ARD 2019 competition, also seems to like more vibrancy (and that's on a Selmer clarinet). Being of French ancestry myself, I still like Cahuzac and even Perier and I like the luminescence of chandeliers and stained glass windows and prefer that quality in the clarinet sound too. Of course, if you're in a section where all is dark and covered, you've got to match that sound and make a living.
Post Edited (2019-12-19 06:30)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: kdk
Date: 2019-12-18 23:22
seabreeze wrote:
> Gigliotti has a terrific performance of the Weber Concertino
> with Philadelpha on the "First Chair" vinyl LP that one of my
> teachers (a Bonade student who also studied with Gigliotti)
> said was deliberately made shriller and harsher sounding by a
> jealous clarinet-playing recording engineer.
Somehow, I've missed hearing that one. I suppose it's possible, but the same engineer, Thomas Frost, engineered a lot of their Columbia Masterworks recordings. Who knows???
Karl
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Bob Bernardo
Date: 2019-12-18 23:23
ruben - My mouthpieces are similar to the Ched's and Kaspar's. I've make exact copies using silicone molds. I don't make them this way anymore. I have steel molds now. Maybe one day I'll make more using this process.
The Chedeville mouthpieces and Drucker's mouthpiece is from the same company.
So his is actually a Ched also.
The biggest difference between the old Ched's and the Kaspar's were the facings. The old Ched's had closer facings and the Kaspar's had much more open facings. In fact I have a friend that has a Kaspar, with Harold Wrights name on it, because Kaspar tried to make Harold a mouthpiece but it was too open. Harold played on 1.01mm's I think. This Kaspar had a tip opening of 1.11mm's. Yes I'm had this mouthpiece in my hands and it's completely measured. Every part of the mouthpiece was measured.
A Very fun topic. This topic sheds light on who and what are the fake mouthpieces. We need this to protect others from buying mouthpieces on eBay and other places that say this Buffet mouthpiece and also advertised as Chedeville. This is so wrong. They are charging $500 for a cheap Buffet mouthpiece and sadly people buy them.
The Omar Chedeville's are far from Chedeville's. He just copyrighted the name Chedeville. Yes he owns the name Chedeville! A good businessman, but not a good mouthpiece. He also owns the copyrights of Kaspar. Don't get fooled by the name and the playability of mouthpieces. These are not the true Ched's. He actually bought a mouthpiece from me and he uses mine, because it's that close to the old Ched's, but he has no idea what I do to each mouthpiece. The mouthpiece he got from me is from an old mold. You have to have a great clarinet sound to feel the nuances and harmonic's with what is right and wrong with mouthpieces. Sorry Omar, I'm stating the facts. I know you mean well. Please don't take this personally. Just facts.
Designer of - Vintage 1940 Cicero Mouthpieces and the La Vecchia mouthpieces
Yamaha Artist 2015
Post Edited (2019-12-18 23:31)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: seabreeze
Date: 2019-12-18 23:28
That's not the name I heard for the recording engineer. Could be just a made up story--a clari-urban myth.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: ruben
Date: 2019-12-19 00:06
Karl: does the word "phonogenic" exist? It does in French. At any rate, I agree that a bright sound is not "phonogenic": does not come across well in recordings. The old pre-Leister German players have a tone that is not captured well either. I have in mind Heinrich Geuser, one of the greatest clarinetists I have ever heard . He sounds reedy on the historic Fricsay recordings of the 50s. I used to play with a bassoonist-now unfortunately deceased-who often played with Gigliotti and didn't care for the latter's sound, though he had absolute respect for his incredible solidity. The reason: too bright a tone. His explanation was that Ormandy always asked Gigliotti to play louder and that this ruined Gigliotti's tone.
rubengreenbergparisfrance@gmail.com
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: donald
Date: 2019-12-19 00:16
To be fair to Dr Henderson- asaik he never claimed to make mouthpieces but rather "mouthpiece blanks". The idea with a blank is to have slightly undersized dimensions in some aspects (the bore, the throat, the baffle) so that the person making it into a mouthpiece has leeway to manipulate/change the dimensions to suit.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: ruben
Date: 2019-12-19 00:23
Do; have you tried a Lomax Firebird that uses Omar's blanks? I wouldn't use one all of the time, but they're very impressive and rather unique. I feel that too round a sound doesn't suit French music: eg. Ravel, Debussy, Roussel, Poulenc ,Messiaen...
rubengreenbergparisfrance@gmail.com
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: seabreeze
Date: 2019-12-19 05:50
Donald,
Henderson did sell finished mouthpieces as well as blanks. He sold from his website a plastic Chedeville model and a rubber Chedeville model. He may have eventually discontinued producing the finished models and just continued with the blanks, but at one time he did sell both. In fact, he used to preface his posts to this board in 2012 and 2013 with the disclosure "I manufacture and sell Chedeville brand mouthpieces, mouthpiece blanks, and barrels from my own recreation of Chedeville rubber." I know for certain he made the finished mouthpieces because I was too cheap to buy them and deliberately went for the less expensive blanks instead.
Post Edited (2019-12-19 06:16)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: seabreeze
Date: 2019-12-19 06:26
Merriam-Webster dictionary does record the use of "phonogenic" in English but with a slightly different emphasis of meaning, as "adapted to or suitable for successful production or reproduction of sound." They cite a statement that a certain concert hall can be phonogenic (that is, make the music sound better), and they give an additional quotation about some scores being more phonogenic than others; that is, some written scores look better than they sound. But I think the word can easily be nudged into covering the semantic territory you say the French equivalent covers.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: NBeaty
Date: 2019-12-19 07:02
"To be fair to Dr Henderson- asaik he never claimed to make mouthpieces but rather "mouthpiece blanks". The idea with a blank is to have slightly undersized dimensions in some aspects (the bore, the throat, the baffle) so that the person making it into a mouthpiece has leeway to manipulate/change the dimensions to suit."
This question of whether or not Dr. Henderson "made" Chedeville mouthpieces when he owned the company is a bit more complex than it may seem. The majority of the mouthpieces he produced were indeed blanks, sold to Lomax and not many others (none that I can recall) in any serious number.
While he did sell "finished" mouthpieces (for around $425 if memory serves), he did not finish them or work on them himself in any way. What he told me in person at clarinetfest back in 2011 or 2012 was that (to quote him), "I'm not a mouthpiece guy and I don't do mouthpiece work myself". I'm not sure who he had doing the hand finishing of the pieces that were sold with the Chedeville label. It was also a bit odd that the labels of the finished Chedeville mouthpieces were a copy of the Scroll post-WW2 Chedevilles, which are the least desirable of all the eras of Chedeville production (although the vintage scrolls can be made to play well, just not as awe inspiring as a pre-war Chedeville).
I bought two of the blanks out of curiosity and after hours of work, I found a Vandoren with 10 minutes of refacing work to be superior and also closer to a Chedeville design (or at least less far away from anything to do with a Chedeville).
More often than not, the Kaspar and Chedeville names are applied to modern mouthpieces to attain business, while very few can really claim to have any real relation to either company in design, material, and facing work. A Zinner blank is not a Chedeville or Kaspar. A Kaspar or Chedeville style facing can be applied to a Zinner or Babbitt blank, but being completely different in both internal design and material means they will not play or sound the same.
The special sound of pre-WW2 Chedevilles that was the original cause of their desirability over most modern blanks had little, if anything, to do with the style of curve and finishing. The resonance and beauty of tone that is so highly sought after does come in large part from the quality of rod rubber that was used (do a search on the bboard for the countless discussions of the differences between rod rubber and molded), which is why even if you copy the design, they do not play the same. 99 times out of 100, when makers claim to have copied the design, it's not a true copy or is a copy of a sub-par blank.
A copy of a Chedeville or Kaspar design in molded rubber is a bit like making a Ferrari on a Toyota Camry chasis.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: igalkov
Date: 2019-12-19 10:49
Hi Jarmo,
I obtained M13 once, I loved how it feels in the store and later during the practice, but it survived only one rehearsal — it didn't blend at all with our section of BD5's and Backun PRT's, so I returned it. But when I've got my Behn Epic, which too is an extremely closed mouthpiece of Chedeville design, it was a completely different story — it mixes with the section as a charm, although it has a completely different tone, shape and color. I play it both principal and second clarinet and I've got a complements to my tone from other musicians not-clarinetists, what is unusual story. But clarinetists say, yes, that I play too bright and I need a stronger reed and all that stuff. Who cares? I really don't, cause section sounds and blends really great. I play not for two people with wrong attitude next to me but for the hundreds in the hall.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: ruben
Date: 2019-12-19 11:15
Somebody asked me who the bassoonist was. I inadvertently deleted the sender's e-mail. Could you send me the e-mail again? Sorry!
rubengreenbergparisfrance@gmail.com
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: ruben
Date: 2019-12-19 14:20
Seabreeze: The French meaning is pretty close: "aptitude d'une voix ou d'un instrument à être l'objet d'un enregestrement ou d'une reproduction de qualité" Le Petit Robert. The ability of a voice or instrument to be the object of a high-quality recording or reproduction.
rubengreenbergparisfrance@gmail.com
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: ruben
Date: 2019-12-19 14:39
Igalkov: I agree that other clarinetists' opinion(s) is not the only thing that counts. What do the flautist, oboist, bassoonis, cellist, etc. of your orchestra think? That should count just as much if not more. And as you said, ultimately what does the audience think? People that play the same instrument as we do are so specialized they sometimes lose the big picture.
rubengreenbergparisfrance@gmail.com
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: NBeaty
Date: 2019-12-19 18:54
"Igalkov: I agree that other clarinetists' opinion(s) is not the only thing that counts. What do the flautist, oboist, bassoonis, cellist, etc. of your orchestra think? That should count just as much if not more. And as you said, ultimately what does the audience think? People that play the same instrument as we do are so specialized they sometimes lose the big picture."
Absolutely! There is so much fear and seemingly paranoia in the clarinet community about sounding "bright", in addition to players just following the equipment choices of particular players.
"it mixes with the section as a charm, although it has a completely different tone, shape and color. I play it both principal and second clarinet and I've got a complements to my tone from other musicians not-clarinetists, what is unusual story. But clarinetists say, yes, that I play too bright and I need a stronger reed and all that stuff. Who cares? I really don't, cause section sounds and blends really great. I play not for two people with wrong attitude next to me but for the hundreds in the hall."
It has been my experience that what clarinetists refer to as "bright" comes across as resonant, brilliant, full, and colorful to other musicians and audience members. Certainly, clarinetists seem to be the only ones who fear a vibrant and responsive reed. Behn Rod Rubber mouthpieces, such as the Epic or previously the Vintage designs, are better than almost any vintage Chedeville blank. They accept a vibrant and fully responsive reed and allow the player to access a more vibrant or brilliant sound or a mellower one at a moment's notice.
When the player feels comfortable with the setup, doesn't have to add jaw pressure to make the setup work, and embraces a full and resonant sound they will find they have flexibility to access a variety of beautiful sounds for any given situation.
Personally, I feel that the word "bright" shouldn't be a bad word in the clarinet community. For too long it's been one of the most offensive words you can use to describe someone's sound, as if it's a synonym for "shrill". It seems that players will run away from a brilliant and vibrant tone because it's been conflated with being "shrill".
While I don't want to start yet another discussion of whether the word "dark" is positive or negative, I would say that what people often describe as dark is actually a sound that has DEPTH. There's definitely no reason why a vibrant, bright, and brilliant sound can't have access to the depth and color of a full and flexible sound. Certainly, I would argue that a vibrant and resonant reed allows the player increased and easier access to ALL parts of the sound.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Chetclar
Date: 2019-12-19 19:50
This is a bit off topic. A few years ago, I played a Broadway show tour with a long time friend who had purchased three Chedeville ‘Artistic Facing” mouthpieces in New York in 1945 when he was at the Julliard School. He also had a Bettoney”Artistic Facing” mouthpiece, three beautiful original Kaspar13 mouthpieces and one Kaspar 11 picked at Mr. Kaspar’s Cicero repair shop in the mid 1960’s.Throughout his professional career, he tended to alternate between one Chedeville “Artistic Facing” and one Kaspar 13. On this particular show, I was playing the first book and he was playing the second book. Every night ,for eight nights, he brought me one of his mouthpieces to play a show with . It was an absolutely awesome experience!
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: seabreeze
Date: 2019-12-19 22:39
Igalkov and Nathan,
I agree that Brad Behn makes excellent mouthpieces that are flexible in tonal shading and have good depth in the sound. His best pieces embody his motto to "celebrate resonance." In the US there are players in the Boston Symphony, Detroit Symphony and elsewhere using them. Sasha Rattle has played Behns and Bil Jackson now uses them. As to not worrying much about the current fashion in clarinet sound, some of that rare group of classical clarinetists who make a living as touring and recording soloists also have managed to play their own way: Sharon Kam would be a good example. Though German and living in that country, she plays Buffet R13 Boehm clarinets and evidently revels in producing (on a Peter Eaton mouthpiece) a very vibrant sound that--however out of fashion it may be--many concert goers and conductors love. Julian Bliss also retains vibrancy in his tone.
Chet,
Your comments remind me of the question about what ought to be considered Chedeville mouthpieces. Was, for example, the Alelandais mouthpiece Stanley Drucker used to such great distinction in his long career a Ched piece or more properly a Lelandias piece? Charles Chedeville and A. Lelandais evidently did work together at some point before Lelandais acquired the company. Bettony mouthpieces were usually made on Chedeville blanks but should they be called Chedeville mouthpieces? The same question can be asked concerning the fine mouthpieces (now collectors' items selling for high prices) made by Henri Leroy and Alexandre Robert. They were also (usually?) made from Ched blanks, but should they be called "Chedeville" mouthpieces?
Post Edited (2019-12-20 23:35)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Chetclar
Date: 2019-12-20 19:22
In answer to your question about what mouthpieces should be actually called “Chedeville” mouthpieces, there is no real answer. The issue is that a high percentage of these mouthpieces have been refaced and “improved” by expert mouthpiece technicians to fit the more modern style of playing, adjust to newer clarinets, etc. Also, as stated by many earlier, these mouthpieces were made on varied blanks due to wars, availability, etc. The excellent articles and blogs by various mouthpiece technicians are the best sources of information about them—I like the articles by Brad Behn and Ramon Wodkowski, because they are the most detailed and expansive. I have been a professional clarinetist for 56 plus years, and have been blessed to be exposed and perform on several of these mouthpieces over time.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: DaphnisetChloe
Date: 2019-12-21 01:04
The reality is, orchestral wind sections are typically looking for a middle ground - a player who can play with a tone that projects, but isn't shrill or edgy, a sound that is warm but isn't stuffy or dull and a tone that blends exceptionally well with that individual section - which may be a brilliant sounding one or a more covered sound (we have to remember, other wind instruments also have a huge spectrum of tonal colours that can be exploited by the player). Deciding you belong to the 'bright' camp or 'dark' camp of budding clarinet players is a mistake - you are limiting your appeal to other musicians by obsessing over one extreme of the tonal spectrum.
James J.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: ruben
Date: 2019-12-21 13:26
Jame J: I fully agree with what you've said! Somebody mentioned Sharon Kam, Julian Bliss, etc. But these people are soloists. They're a different kettle of fish. I could also Mention Paul Meyer. Some of these fine musicians couldn't win an orchestral audition because they wouldn't be expected to blend in well.
rubengreenbergparisfrance@gmail.com
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: echelonphoto
Date: 2021-03-17 20:02
Having studied with Gigliotti in the early seventies....I was in a small attic room with him in his house in N philly. His sound there was rather dull, very centered, and windy and woody sounding.Not impressive. But when you heard him in the orchestra...it was this big, dark, earthy sound that just came out at you. Amazing!
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: donald
Date: 2021-03-18 03:00
Of course there's the material, and there are the dimensions. Like with the Kaspars, a LOT of the "magic" comes from a combination of bore, chamber and baffle profiles and dimensions that would have been "fine tuned" by hand in many cases.
I played a few Chedevilles in the 1990s/early 2000s (not for extensive lengths of time, but long enough to experience some of the "magic") and the thing that struck me most about them was not just the ringing sound, but a feeling that the mouthpiece was "glowing" with the sound. Brightness, resonance, resistance and focus were interacting just right.
I'm still in the playing positions I was in when I wrote the 2019 post (though 2020 provided barely any performance opportunities), with conductors who think the clarinet should sound "dark and mellow" and tolerate a "ringing" tone quality only because the principal oboe and bassoon both come out and say "we will only play with donald" (heh heh, good to have friends!).
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
The Clarinet Pages
|
 |
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
