 The Clarinet BBoard
|
Author: Kenneth
Date: 2008-11-22 20:46
I'm new as a member to this forum, although for some time I've enjoyed reading the many posts relating to a varied range of interesting topics. I've come across a number of posts from the past on the subject of the "English School" of clarinet playing. As a Brit myself, I've always had an admiration for the sound and musicality of the greatest British players both present and past (although this does not mean to say that I am unable to appreciate the playing of the finest players of other nationalities as well). There have been a number of comments about the "English clarinet sound", although, from having been listening recently to recordings of several of the most prominent British players of the past 60 or 70 years, I am struck by the differences in tone and phrasing between the different clarinettists. I am aware that the majority of the players used wide bore clarinets (especially B&H 1010s) till about 25 to 30 years ago, and that some still do, however I'm particularly interested in the mouthpiece characteristics (especially facings) and reed strengths used by these players and whether these were as varied as the range of different sounds among British clarinettists would suggest. Does anyone have knowledge of this?
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Caroline Smale
Date: 2008-11-22 21:41
From my experience of meeting and talking with players over about 50 years I get the impression that the tendency in UK has been to use increasingly wide lays e.g. 120/125 plus with medium-ish reeds however there has always been quite a diversity. I understand that Thurston used a very close lay (less than 1.00) and from his firm sound I assume relatively hard reeds. Brymer used wider lays of about 50 thou or say 1.25 whilst Bernard Walton was using quite long lays (on a reform \boehm model) and one well known principal was using remarkably soft reeds so its seems anything could go.
I think that the people with a real information based on their research into mouthpiece design in UK are Ed Pillinger and Peater Eaton.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: NorbertTheParrot
Date: 2008-11-22 22:05
Further to Norman's comments, Peter Eaton's website says:
"As a guide, we consider 1.23 mm to be a mid-range tip opening."
I suspect that 1.23 mm is distinctly wider than used by most players these days; certainly it is wider than almost all Vandoren mouthpieces.
However:
- Eaton states that this is the measurement at the *extreme* tip, and may be a larger measurement than is given by a feeler gauge. He does not tell us what measurement a feeler gauge would be likely to give.
- The fact that "we" (i.e. Eaton himself) regard a measurement as mid-range, doesn't necessarily mean that it is the average of measurements used by British players of the past.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: clancy
Date: 2008-11-23 09:37
Mr Smales post sounds good to me.
I have seen and measured many vintage mouthpieces made by Boosey and Hawkes, Hawkes and Son, Louis, Boosey and Co - as well as the personal mouthpieces of Thurston, Kell, Sidney Fell, Brymer, plus most of the current "English School" clarinettists.
From what I have seen and measured from countless vintage mouthpieces, it seems that the trend pre 1950 in the UK was a very short, close lay.
There arent many surviving original facing mouthpieces pre dating the merger of Boosey and Hawkes (1931), but the ones I have seen have a short lay and very close tip, sometimes as close as under 1.0mm. Most of these mouthpieces had a normal size window for modern standards but a very deep, scooped baffle which would balance that close facing. Im told that Charles Drapers lay was something around 1.1 with a length of 33mm or so; I have seen lays similar to that on many older mouthpieces as well, some people in London use that lay still, Tony Lamb at the English National Opera is one example.
The mouthpieces made when Boosey and Hawkes merged were slightly different - very long cut windows, wider chambers and a less deeply scooped baffle. Thurston and Sidney Fells mouthpiece have very long windows, short and close facings. Im told they all used very soft reeds - its important to remember that they were using wide bore clarinets and had a very different concept of playing from todays standards, very little embouchure pressure. The long window Boosey applied added a certain amount of resistance to hold those soft reeds.
Jack Brymer from all accounts started life using conventional mouthpieces and gradually went to more and more open lays as his career progressed. Ive seen one mouthpiece that belonged to him post WW2 and it was close with very long window and lay, 40 on the Brand Gauge. The tip had been damaged and relayed, but I would think the actual tip opening was somewhere on or under 1.05mm
One thing I will say here is that there doesnt seem to have ever been a prescribed lay, reed or ideal setup people chased after - players used what worked for them.
It is also important to mention that many players during WW2 and 1950s relayed their own mouthpieces and did some work for friends, so there was a lot of interest in mouthpiece workings - sadly many mouthpieces were butchered.... John McCaw did all his own mouthpieces, some Ive measured ranged from 1.12 - 1.23mm. Walter Lear, former bass clarinettist in Thurstons section of the BBC relayed many mouthpieces for players, Im still finding his calling card around town on old mouthpieces to this day.
Reginald Kell did his own mouthpieces - I saw a bass mouthpiece he relayed that is very good indeed. His mouthpiece (which is in the museum in Edinburgh) was a fairly conventional curve, approx 1.10mm tip but very crooked. It was intentionally made crooked in my opinion, perhaps he had teeth issues or just preferred that type of feel, he did play double lip. He apparently encouraged his pupils to play on the softest reed they dare.
In the 1950/60s many players started going to more open lays, De Peyer, Brymer, McCaw, etc. The style of playing changed as Thurstons generation were getting old and the pre war 1010s everyone used were being discarded for modern Boosey instruments. The mouthpieces made by Boosey and Hawkes at this time had a more modern style window, baffle and chamber setup and could much more easily handle those open lays.
It is also important to note here that orchestras were getting much louder, string players switching to metal strings, larger orchestras and halls, so clarinettists had to play with more volume.
It seems that by the late 70s early 80s, many of the English players who still played 1010s or early Eaton clarinets were using lays of around at least a 1.2mm tip, Brymer is rumoured to have used something 1.3mm+ at one point. Bob Hill has always used pieces ranging from 1.2 - 1.3mm.
Todays players in the UK (who use wide bore clarinets and/or subscribe to that concept) are still in the same ball park - I have worked on many of the principal clarinettists mouthpieces and have to say that the general preference is a lay of about 1.23+ and a medium/long lay and soft reed. There are many other players in town who do not play wide bore instruments and use a very open lay - Andrew Marriner and Nick Carpenter are two who come to mind - plus many players who use something completely different, Ive seen Kaspar mouthpieces floating around, Nagamatsu, its quite a mix.
IMHO Kenneth, the reason those older players you mention have those distinctive qualities and flexibility is due to the concept and instruments they employed - very soft setup and a mouthpiece/clarinet combination to hold against it, leading to a very flexible colourful result. Jack Brymer said the English instruments take on the personality of the player - I personally think that a player with a good mind and ears can sound like themselves on anything, but those instruments and setups geared to that approach do offer a wonderfully wide colour palette. There were of course other players who did not use the wide bore clarinets whose playing shared many of those qualities - Walton on Schmidts, Kell and his Hawkes, McCaw buffet, so as I say, its all about concept.
Hope that helps
R Wodkowski
http://www.morgensternsdiaryservice.com/WebProfile/wodkowski_r_6589.shtml
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Arnoldstang
Date: 2008-11-23 15:18
In Clancy's post he stated "Charles Drapers lay was something around 1.1 with a length of 33mm or so". Is this a mistake? That would be double the facing length of most conventional mouthpieces which are around 17mm. I would take the 33 to be the Eric Brand scale?
Freelance woodwind performer
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: cigleris
Date: 2008-11-23 15:59
Arnoldstang,
I don't think Clancy is wrong, he know's his stuff and is amazing at working on mouthpieces. I know from personal experience.
Peter Cigleris
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Kenneth
Date: 2008-11-23 16:17
Thank you all for your posts, especially Clancy who clearly has a lot of experience in this area.
Clancy, you mention that Kell's mouthpiece is in a museum in Edinburgh. Do you know if this is the Reid Museum of historic wind instruments?
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: clancy
Date: 2008-11-23 16:43
Arnoldstang, of course I meant the Brand Gauge, sorry for not being clearer.
Kells mouthpiece is in the archive collection of the University of Edinburgh, along with his Hawkes and Son clarinets.
R Wodkowski
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Vytas
Date: 2008-11-23 17:09
cigleris wrote:
<"I don't think Clancy is wrong, he know's his stuff and is amazing at working on mouthpieces. I know from personal experience"<.
Typically soprano clarinet mouthpiece window is 30 mm - 32.5 mm long. Side rails would be about 2 mm shorter than the window. A facing with a length of 33 mm would be longer than the entire length of the side rails. So, the measurement definitely is the Eric Brand scale 33 or 16.5 mm (2 points = 1 mm)
Vytas Krass
Custom clarinet mouthpiece maker
Professional clarinet technician
Former professional clarinet player
Post Edited (2008-11-24 00:24)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Don Berger
Date: 2008-11-23 17:30
I have a Kell Mag-Tone Bb mp, which, with a very slight facing "polish", is my current "dark" favorite. I'll make what window and facing length measurements I can and post if requested. Don
Thanx, Mark, Don
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: clancy
Date: 2008-11-23 18:08
To have said 33mm was a clear error on my part, should have said 33 on the Brand gauge - too early in the morning...
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: graham
Date: 2008-11-24 07:14
I have a mouthpiece made by Pillinger which he copied from a mouthpiece whose owner said it was Draper's favourite. The measurements are length: 17mm, tip 1.05mm. That makes it a close and short lay by modern standards. The problem is that when I saw Draper's last mouthpiece on his pair of clarinets (always assuming that this really was his mouthpiece, because it looked like it had no wear, and Draper continued playing "for fun" long after he had really retired) it did not look much like the mouthpiece I had. Of course, Draper probably changed his set up over his long career. My suspicion is that the Draper copy produced by Pillinger is one of Haydn Draper's mouthpieces, not Charles Draper. It sounds that way to me.
Ed Pillinger also commented that the old English lay (i.e. pre 1940) tended to have a straighter line of "curve" than modern mouthpieces do.
I have a copy of a 1960s pamphlet from Boosey & Hawkes describing its mouthpiece numbering system (nos 1, 2, 3). From this it seems that 1 was regarded as good for chamber music (close facing), 2 for general use (e.g. orchestral) and the wide 3 facing for people who have problems to address. Unfortunately it does not say what the actual measurements are. That would be interesting because it would tell us what the manufacturer considered normal and abnormal at the time. However, I detect that the manufacturers were trying to hold the line against lay inflation by implicitly recommending a moderate lay. If so, then I think they probably failed. Lays in the UK have generally gone wider as more effortless power becomes a requirement in most orchestras.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Ed
Date: 2008-11-24 13:53
graham writes:
"The measurements are length: 17mm, tip 1.05mm. That makes it a close and short lay by modern standards."
From most measurements I have seen, 17 (34 on the Brand Gauges) would be somewhat typical of many makers and possibly considered somewhat medium long.
Maybe one of the mouthpiece craftsmen on board can answer this.
Post Edited (2008-11-24 18:50)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: graham
Date: 2008-11-25 06:48
If you go to Pillinger's web site where he gives the measurements of his main designs (16 in total) none are shorter than 19mm, and most are longer than that. It could be a national distinction, but I think in the UK 17mm is short. By the way, it would measure 15mm on a straight forward measure because the last 2mm of the facing is too close to get the gauge under.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Vytas
Date: 2008-12-03 16:38
A very standard length for American style facings is 34, which translates into 17 mm MEDIUM facing.
Here is a very standard curve for 1.05mm tip opening.
Gouge. Mark.
.034 = 6 (3mm)
.024 = 12 (6mm)
.010 = 22 (11mm)
.0015 = 34 (17mm)
AMERICAN STYLE FACINGS
tip opening in mm:
0.95 – very close
______________________
1.00 - close
1.05 - medium close
1.10 - medium
1.15 - medium open
1.20 – open
______________________
1.25 - very open
1.30 – jazz/ethnic open
AMERICAN STYLE LENGTH OF LAY (in millimeters)
15 - short
16 - medium short
17 - medium
18 - medium long
19 – long
20&up – very long
Vytas Krass
Custom clarinet mouthpiece maker
Professional clarinet technician
Former professional clarinet player
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Gregory Smith ★2017
Date: 2008-12-03 17:20
Facing numbers vary greatly depending on the interior dimensions of the blank/mouthpiece. For instance, similar facing numbers do not play nearly the same on an "A" or "E" Zinner blank as they do on a Frank Kaspar or Ch. Chedeville (take your pick as to what vintage).
For that matter, the same numbers do not produce nearly the same results on a Kaspar Cicero as they do on a Ch. Chedeville. It simply isn't "all in the facing" as you may have heard from some mouthpiece makers (*not* including any of the ones above).
For this reason, I do not encourage following "the numbers" with as strict a formula as many people seem to want to. Many of the comparative mouthpiece charts that one sees in retail catalogues or on websites are, at best, misleading. Many only show tip openings and only some the length in mm's.
But that kind of chart does not reveal the actual curve or "inner numbers" of the resistance curve let alone the effect that interior dimensions have on the results.
And that's just the start. Bore dimensions, sidewall configuration, beak dimensions, etc, all contribute to how a facing feels relative to other mouthpieces.
Gregory Smith
http://www.gregory-smith.com
Post Edited (2008-12-03 17:20)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: job_man
Date: 2008-12-16 15:32
Interesting, graham, what you say about a B & H pamphlet regarding mouthpiece facings. From my experience of visiting Boosey's Edgware factory in the '60s, meeting Dave James and Geoffrey Acton, I would not say that the definitions 1, 2 & 3 mean anything more than small, medium and large! On one visit I was handed a large tray of mouthpieces to test, and, apart from failing to find one I liked, I noted that they were all different from one another, without much rhyme or reason. When I asked if a mouthpiece could be changed in its characteristics, the lay was dragged across a sheet of fine wet and dry, and handed back to me; I rather suspected that this was how all the lays were arrived at. 'Rule of thumb' taken quite literally! In those days the possession of a favourable mouthpiece seemed to be entirely a matter of luck and was, I believe, the reason for Peter Eaton and others to take up the production of mouthpieces in a professional and serious way.
Unfortunately, the result is that there are now so many choices out there that it takes a brave person to even begin to think of exploring a change of mouthpiece. The only possible plan seems to be to put oneself in the hands of one of the experts, tell them what one wants out of a mouthpiece, and let them make the suggestions. I'm quite glad that I shall be retired before my current mouthpiece dies.....
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Nelson
Date: 2022-10-19 10:05
Thank you all. I hadn't seen that thread on the Bulletin Board. I will work my way through it
I bought one of the B&H/Brymer mouthpieces and it was not at all useable. I read somewhere that they were made by Chedeville but it was most disappointing. I sent mine back to B&H and it was relayed and greatly improved when I got it back together with a letter explaining the admittedly faulty product. I've never been able to get proof that Chedeville did the original work. I love the Brymer way of almost 'singing' through a phrase but with a unique creaminess I still have the Brymer mouthpiece which I used in many shows here in Australia but then I discovered Pillinger and that's where I am now. . He came here to Adelaide performing the Stanford back in 1978.
Nelson
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Paul Aviles
Date: 2022-10-19 16:48
This brings back some memories for me too. Even though I'm a "Yank," I played Boosey and Hawkes 1010s for about four years (still have the pair buried in a closet somewhere). I started with Brymer mouthpieces myself and also found them unusable. I wound up on the basic 1010 mouthpieces which played less bright and grating.
GREAT resources above......take them to heart.
Remember, a good facing for Brymer (or Kell or DePeyer etc.) may not be a good one for you and may in fact be quite awful.
Lastly if you play 1010s, you can find a great mouthpiece ANYWHERE and have Pillinger rebore it to work for the 1010s. If you DON'T play 1010s, the 1010 mouthpieces WON'T work no matter what you do. The large, cylindrical bore will produce internal pitch problems on any other clarinet that cannot be fixed.
..............Paul Aviles
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Tony F
Date: 2022-10-19 19:00
I acquired a B&H Brymer mouthpiece some years ago. I found it extremely resistant and unusable, at least by me. I still have it in my junk drawer, I may try getting it refaced. I have a 1010 tucked away. On it I use a B&H 1010 mouthpiece with the number 2 lay and a selmer piece refaced by Ed Pillinger. They both play well, but the Pillinger mouthpiece has by far the best tone.
Tony F.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: RWodkowski
Date: 2022-10-21 20:22
In reply to these recent comments, I have never in my years working with professional British players encountered anyone that used the Brymer mouthpieces. They were seen largely as a flop. Brymer himself didnt use them by all accounts, and was not happy with them.
As for the issue of Chedeville making them. Chedeville had long been sold to Lelandais in the late 1940s, and they had plenty of turnover with their craftspeople over the years, which is normal for any manufacturing outfit. These would have been made during the last few years that the company was making blanks, and they did not resemble what they had made in previous years, let alone the 1940s and before. So technically you could say “Chedeville” as the company that owned the name made them, but in my opinion they were something quite different.
RW
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
The Clarinet Pages
|
 |
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
