 The Clarinet BBoard
|
Author: Noodler100
Date: 2024-08-02 21:20
Hi - anyone here had any experience playing a Selmer Recital with a Gleichweit mouthpiece? Articulation and response is great, but sound is fairly thin and lacking depth....interested in any views!
Thanks,
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: hans
Date: 2024-08-02 21:25
I'm not familiar with Gleichweit. I use a 5RV with a Legere #2 on my Recital and my wife likes the sound :-)
Hans
Post Edited (2024-08-02 21:26)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: m1964
Date: 2024-08-03 00:38
Noodler100 wrote:
"...anyone here had any experience playing a Selmer Recital with a Gleichweit mouthpiece? Articulation and response is great, but sound is fairly thin and lacking depth....interested in any views!"
Have you tried the MP with another clarinet? Or, have you tried the Recital with another MP?
If you can do both, it may help to figure out the 'weak link'.
Alternatively, if you have a clarinet shop near by, it may help to go there and try different MPs.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: sonicbang
Date: 2024-08-04 17:21
It's important to know if the Gleichweit you play is an earlier hard rubber one, or a newer plastic model.
In my experience, the earlier hard rubber versions had a richer tone. Partly because of the material, but most importantly, the amount of hand-finishing. The newer plastic ones (at least, the ones that were brought to me to work on) don't receive much hand-finishing. The facings are often asymmetrical, and the table concavity can reach the window, creating a small air leak, and making the reed's platform less reliable. Also, the body and the beak consist of two parts, I suspect they are molded separately, and then merged. This is no problem, but usually, there is a sharp edge where the chamber and the bore meet, and this should have been removed and sanded down.
So these flaws can be corrected, which improves the overall playing experience significantly, but the material won't produce the same overtone spectrum as a good quality hard rubber.
I recommend sending the mouthpiece to your favorite tech to check and see if the things above apply.
long disclaimer: Though I tried a couple of Recitals in exhibitions and worked on a couple of Gleichweit mouthpieces, I never played on this specific combination. I only worked on 15-16 plastic and 2 hard rubber Gleichweits, so you can consider all of the above to be anectodical, and it doesn't mean that thousands of other mouthpieces have the same flaws. But I fully stand behind my statement about the effects of the material. I know I probably open a can of worms here.
Mark
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: JTJC
Date: 2024-08-04 19:28
Mark,
Re your comment about the table concavity going beyond the window. I take it you think any concavity should be contained entirely within the table. I've seen several mouthpieces where the concavity does go beyond the window. I'd assumed the theory was that it allowed the reed to be flexed by the tightening of the ligature. However, having tried to flex the stock of a reed with my fingers, I'm not convinced a reed can be flexed by a ligature. Does concavity serve any other puropse than the supposed flexing?
Also, would a noticeable amount of air really be lost with concavity going beyond the window?
Finally, do you think table concavity is an essential feature of any mouthpiece?
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: sonicbang
Date: 2024-08-04 20:50
John,
Mouthpiece table concavity dates back to the time when wooden mouthpieces were the standard more than 100 years ago. The concavity had a really practical role: it gave room for the mouthpiece and the reed when both the reed AND the mouthpiece started to shrink during the performance, as a reaction to the increased humidity. This became totally unnecessary with the advent of hard rubber mouthpieces that don't change their dimensions due to the change of the moisture level.
Those who say table concavity helps the reed to vibrate more, essentially state that the resonance of the fixed part also contributed to the sound. If the heel and the barked part (everything under the ligature) vibrate enough to create an audible sound it means the reed is not sufficiently fixed, and that's a huge problem. If it doesn't vibrate enough to make an audible sound, then what's the point?
For those who say the concavity allows applying more ligature pressure and increasing the tip opening, I suggest a mouthpiece where the tip opening is already big enough for them without ruining the ligature, squeezing the reed, and ultimately putting an unnecessary amount of stress on the mouthpiece's body.
Basically, concave tables have no obvious merits and introduce a huge amount of uncertainty to a delicate equation. I always apply flat tables to the mouthpieces I work on, and the clients are happy with the change, they usually say they just find more usable reeds out of the box.
Mark
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: sonicbang
Date: 2024-08-04 21:02
Regarding the concavity that reaches the window, I don't think it consumes any additional amount of air. The problem is that it creates a small turbulence which contributes to the overall resistance without contributing to the resonance.
Mark
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Bob Barnhart ★2017
Date: 2024-08-05 06:32
Mark,
I have been playing several Gleichweit mouthpieces for about 9 months now (BW 7-1, 7-4, 8-4) with my CSG A/Bb and have been very happy with the tone/response/resistance using Pilgerstorfer Dolce 3.5-3.75 and Legere Euro Cut 3-3.5 and French Cut 3-3.25 reeds.
I feel that these mouthpieces play well with a nice sound but do better (1) with softer reeds compensated with using a stronger air stream, and (2) if you take in more mouthpiece.
I have noticed the ridge between the baffle and bore and wondered if that was intentional or what. I don't know that I can identify how that affects the sound/resistance/response/... What effect do you think this has? How could I remove it and what improvement could I expect?
Finally, it appears that these mouthpieces DO have a very long concavity in the table that nearly reaches the window. However, I have not detected any negative quality in the mouthpieces that might be related to this. Again, if the table were flattened, what improvement might I expect?
Thanks,
Bob Barnhart
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: JTJC
Date: 2024-08-05 20:14
Mark, thanks for your responses. The leak from table concavity causing turbulence seems plausible. It's also occurring exactly where the sound is produced, so presumably a greater impact.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: sonicbang
Date: 2024-08-06 02:20
Bob,
If you feel the mouthpiece plays great in its current state, I would be hesitant to modify it in any way. Even if I think I could objectively improve the mouthpiece, you may not find these improvements to be good for you.
The edges where the bore and the chamber meet are clearly not a designed feature, it's just a lack of hand-finishing. If you feel some 'noisy resistance' that's probably it. Removing those edges doesn't require refacing skills, your clarinet tech can do that too. That modification alone will make the sound clearer and the airflow more efficient. Every single mouthpiece improved (according to the owners too) on which I performed these finishing touches.
Making the table flat makes the reed more stable and the response is more immediate and reliable when compared to a sloppily made concave table.
Mark
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Bob Barnhart ★2017
Date: 2024-08-06 03:10
Thanks Mark! At age 73 my Gleichweits play easier and better than all the other mouthpieces I’ve played, so I am not tempted to touch them until I have to.
If I do, I’ll keep you in mind!
Bob
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: JohnP
Date: 2024-08-06 11:34
Leitner and Kraus mouthpiece blanks are made in two halves. I obtained a couple a while ago and there was a ridge down the outside of the mouthpiece lengthwise from the tip to the tenon.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
The Clarinet Pages
|
 |
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
