Yes, all those applications when you need everything about a mouthpiece to be too small except the backbore and throat, which you need to be much too big.
Who in their right mind plays a Bach 1 1/2G ??
-
ttf_Gabe Langfur
- Posts: 0
- Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 12:00 pm
Who in their right mind plays a Bach 1 1/2G ??
Quote from: blast on Dec 08, 2008, 03:01PMThat's not actually what the 1.5GM is...it's the same cup as 1.5 with bore and backbore of 1.25GM and 1G.... obviously works in some applications.
Yes, all those applications when you need everything about a mouthpiece to be too small except the backbore and throat, which you need to be much too big.
Yes, all those applications when you need everything about a mouthpiece to be too small except the backbore and throat, which you need to be much too big.
-
ttf_slidejj
- Posts: 0
- Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 11:59 am
Who in their right mind plays a Bach 1 1/2G ??
Quote from: MoominDave on Dec 08, 2008, 02:54PMHow does the Bach 1.5GM match up to your desires? 1.25 back end on a 1.5 front end... I think it's a pretty nice piece.
Too unbalanced for me, but if it works for you go 'fer it.
Too unbalanced for me, but if it works for you go 'fer it.
-
ttf_MoominDave
- Posts: 0
- Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 11:59 am
Who in their right mind plays a Bach 1 1/2G ??
Thanks for the correction, Chris. Daft of me not to spot that properly.
That said, mine doesn't feel 1G-open at the back. Perhaps it's an artefact of Bach's famously variable QA... My 1.25GM does, in contrast, feel uncomfortably wide open. If I can work out how to, I'll take some measurements to compare.
"Works for me" - well, this particular specimen blows nicely, but, as with every other (mostly more expensive!) mouthpiece I've accumulated, I keep coming back to my original 1.25G...
That said, mine doesn't feel 1G-open at the back. Perhaps it's an artefact of Bach's famously variable QA... My 1.25GM does, in contrast, feel uncomfortably wide open. If I can work out how to, I'll take some measurements to compare.
"Works for me" - well, this particular specimen blows nicely, but, as with every other (mostly more expensive!) mouthpiece I've accumulated, I keep coming back to my original 1.25G...
-
ttf_Daniel Harris
- Posts: 0
- Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 11:58 am
Who in their right mind plays a Bach 1 1/2G ??
I would like to pull the focus of this thread back a bit to deal with what I considered some very thought provoking posts in another thread, but that I hope will, ultimately, be taken as sufficiently on topic here. (Interesting how, whatever the topic, whenever the 1.5G comes up, discussion seems to revolve around it!)
What follows are some quotes from the General Mouthpiece Size (bass) thread in the Polls section.
Blast on 10/18:
QuoteIn recent times, whilst tenor trombones have remained largely unchanged (check how many tenor players around the world actually play .562 slides and 2G mouthpiece) bass trombones, and their mouthpieces have grown considerably.... and all the while, we still spend most of our time playing music written in the late 19th C. The music HAS NOT CHANGED.
I think this development is less than ideal for many reasons, and sense that a correction is beginning to happen, as audience tastes change.
Chris, could you spell out the change in audience taste to which you refer, and what you see as the implications thereof regarding mouthpiece size? I'm not trying to call you out, and I'm not saying you are wrong; I'll freely admit to being cluless here, but I would rather not be.
BassBoneFl 10/19:
QuoteEven though there are lots of 60-size pieces out there, the past few decades have produced some great forward leaps in design that have greatly increased the efficiency of these large sized pieces. What was most enlightening was how many of the newer designs produced a slightly more "old school" sound than the old standby 60. While they retained much of the size and weight of the 60 there was more core, center and color to the newer designs. So I guess even some of the newer big pieces have a certain "smallness" to their sound.
Blast 10/19:
QuoteVery interesting Harold.... I have started to observe the same thing with some of the big mouthpieces... the Laskeys and Hammonds, and particularly the Giddings and Webster (the Chinook is the one I tried) all sound much more compact.... but if thats the case, why not just use the 1 1/2G... it's easier
Harold and Chris, I'm sure both of you have far greater experience with many of the products of the newer mouthpiece makers than I. That said, I have never thought that the Bach 2G or 1.5G, arguably the original "old school" bass mouthpieces, were, at least for their size, especially efficient. Indeed, I'm inclined to argue that none of the Bach mouthpieces - at least the ones I'm familiar with - are about efficiency particularly. Rather, they are about the character of the sound in some sense - a sound that is gratifying and interesting in a way that I find difficult to express precisely in terms of "core, center, and color," although those factors are certainly involved. To the extent that I have tried some of the newer, "more efficient" mouthpieces, they seem to gain their efficiency often at the price of limiting the lower overtones in the sound in favor of the upper ones. This may be some people's idea of "color," but it is not mine. True, such mouthpieces may produce a clearer sound, with less expenditure of air, but it is a sound I generally find much less interesting; there seems to be less to listen for and listen to.
Therefore, Chris, when you say that the 1.5G would be "easier" than some of the new stuff, I have to wonder. First, if memory serves, you have said many times that the point about the 1.5G (the old Bach ones, anyway) is not that it is easy, but that it is worth the effort. Second, as suggested above, I suspect that the new stuff,no matter how much more efficient, is still going to be different.
Blast 10/19:
QuoteI would simply caution that not all development means progress and an advancement of our craft in the pursuit of our artform... only time will tell... and I fear that the most important changes are in the conceptual parameters considered important in modern performance.... I am sick of hearing a clinical excellence that is devoid of the musical spark that is the reason that music should be important in our society.
I agree with this entirely. The way I would it is: clean playing is great - sterile playing is not. I would simply raise the question whether more efficient equipment tends to produce more clinical, sterile playing - or is this exactly what you are saying already?
Blast 10/19:
QuoteHarold,it took me a good while to move back into smaller accomadation... you are right, it's a whole different way of blowing.. and you lose as well as gain in all sorts of ways.
No argument here either, but it does prompt the thought that perhaps one factor behind some equipment changes is frustration at "tallying the ledger" the same way over and over again.
Dan Harris
What follows are some quotes from the General Mouthpiece Size (bass) thread in the Polls section.
Blast on 10/18:
QuoteIn recent times, whilst tenor trombones have remained largely unchanged (check how many tenor players around the world actually play .562 slides and 2G mouthpiece) bass trombones, and their mouthpieces have grown considerably.... and all the while, we still spend most of our time playing music written in the late 19th C. The music HAS NOT CHANGED.
I think this development is less than ideal for many reasons, and sense that a correction is beginning to happen, as audience tastes change.
Chris, could you spell out the change in audience taste to which you refer, and what you see as the implications thereof regarding mouthpiece size? I'm not trying to call you out, and I'm not saying you are wrong; I'll freely admit to being cluless here, but I would rather not be.
BassBoneFl 10/19:
QuoteEven though there are lots of 60-size pieces out there, the past few decades have produced some great forward leaps in design that have greatly increased the efficiency of these large sized pieces. What was most enlightening was how many of the newer designs produced a slightly more "old school" sound than the old standby 60. While they retained much of the size and weight of the 60 there was more core, center and color to the newer designs. So I guess even some of the newer big pieces have a certain "smallness" to their sound.
Blast 10/19:
QuoteVery interesting Harold.... I have started to observe the same thing with some of the big mouthpieces... the Laskeys and Hammonds, and particularly the Giddings and Webster (the Chinook is the one I tried) all sound much more compact.... but if thats the case, why not just use the 1 1/2G... it's easier
Harold and Chris, I'm sure both of you have far greater experience with many of the products of the newer mouthpiece makers than I. That said, I have never thought that the Bach 2G or 1.5G, arguably the original "old school" bass mouthpieces, were, at least for their size, especially efficient. Indeed, I'm inclined to argue that none of the Bach mouthpieces - at least the ones I'm familiar with - are about efficiency particularly. Rather, they are about the character of the sound in some sense - a sound that is gratifying and interesting in a way that I find difficult to express precisely in terms of "core, center, and color," although those factors are certainly involved. To the extent that I have tried some of the newer, "more efficient" mouthpieces, they seem to gain their efficiency often at the price of limiting the lower overtones in the sound in favor of the upper ones. This may be some people's idea of "color," but it is not mine. True, such mouthpieces may produce a clearer sound, with less expenditure of air, but it is a sound I generally find much less interesting; there seems to be less to listen for and listen to.
Therefore, Chris, when you say that the 1.5G would be "easier" than some of the new stuff, I have to wonder. First, if memory serves, you have said many times that the point about the 1.5G (the old Bach ones, anyway) is not that it is easy, but that it is worth the effort. Second, as suggested above, I suspect that the new stuff,no matter how much more efficient, is still going to be different.
Blast 10/19:
QuoteI would simply caution that not all development means progress and an advancement of our craft in the pursuit of our artform... only time will tell... and I fear that the most important changes are in the conceptual parameters considered important in modern performance.... I am sick of hearing a clinical excellence that is devoid of the musical spark that is the reason that music should be important in our society.
I agree with this entirely. The way I would it is: clean playing is great - sterile playing is not. I would simply raise the question whether more efficient equipment tends to produce more clinical, sterile playing - or is this exactly what you are saying already?
Blast 10/19:
QuoteHarold,it took me a good while to move back into smaller accomadation... you are right, it's a whole different way of blowing.. and you lose as well as gain in all sorts of ways.
No argument here either, but it does prompt the thought that perhaps one factor behind some equipment changes is frustration at "tallying the ledger" the same way over and over again.
Dan Harris
-
ttf_BassBoneFL
- Posts: 0
- Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 11:58 am
Who in their right mind plays a Bach 1 1/2G ??
Hi Dan
Thanks for keeping our MD busy up there when he's not here. Say "hi" to Garth S and Dave S for me....
As for your points. The 2G, 1 1/2 sound is at the heart of what I would consider my core sound concept. Ed Kleinhammer (esp during the Reiner and Martinon eras), Ed Anderson, Ray Premru, George Roberts and Dave Taylor are among my "sound idols" that make up the composite "trombone in my head". (to paraphrase Arnold Jacobs) I combine elements of that with the Vernon/Norrell "bigger, wider, darker yet still with center, focus and core" type sound.
I played a 1 1/2G from 8th grade through early undergrad and moved to a 59 and then a 60. (the 1G never really did it for me but Norrell, Hawes and you have done quite well with it) Coincidentally that change occurred as I began to play more orchestral and "classical" music. I played primarily jazz/commercial before that.
The 60 I felt was an inefficient, flawed piece but it helped me get the sound in my head out the bell the best. I played on one for a few years and then from '84-'06 played on several custom variants of the 60 made for me by Scot Laskey and Greg Black that addressed what I felt to be the shortcomings. As I was getting ready to have a new model made with a few more tweaks done, I decided to try the multitude of brands that had emerged over the years (remember the days when we had only Bach and Schilke?). After trying the new makes, I decided there were more than enough improvements in "the science" and choices available to render the hit-n-miss custom game moot.
The efficiencies I find most improved in the newer designs are the ease in response and ability to center the sound/pitch that was always the Achilles heel of the 60/1G for me.... it could be done but you had to REALLY work for it. Also the clarity of articulation and the upper register was much easier as well. Yes some of the designs achieved this with a slight loss in the depth of sound that drew me to these pieces to start with. There is often a trade to a degree. However in some, for me, the loss in this area was little or none.
Not to long ago I was subbing with another orchestra and the low brass took a "field trip" to a nearby dealer of high end "toys". We spent several hours trying out different stuff and comparing things. I did a 60-size mouthpiece-go-round with all that was on hand. (Griego, G&W, Hammond, Laskey, Black) After a lot of back-n-forth, just for grins, I threw a stock 60 in the mix... our jaws hit the floor. The basic conclusion was "how did we get by all those years with that thing". The new stuff had much or all of the size and depth of sound of the 60 but every other aspect had taken such a quantum leap forward that it seemed hardly a fair comparison. (BTW the tenors and tuba had similar experiences with their lots too)
Anyway, that's been my experiences and reasoning behind my statements. The new variants on the "big piece classics" still have the aspects to the sound that got us to play them in the first place but they have managed to fix/improve some of the things we gave up or allowed to be diminished in the trade. Perhaps the same can be said of the new 1 1/2G variants as well... I leave that to the players of that size piece for a more informed evaluation than I could provide.
If the 1G/60 still does it for some folks, great. (Randy Hawes recently traded his 1G for a Hammond 21BL and Charlie Vernon traded the Schilke 60cv for a Laskey 95D... Norrell and Bollinger still sound like $1M on theirs) I'm not meaning to imply I'm right/you're wrong, just relating my experience(s) of the past/present. We have more choices out there than ever. Try things and use what gets the sound in your head out the bell with the least physical effort possible.
Thanks for keeping our MD busy up there when he's not here. Say "hi" to Garth S and Dave S for me....
As for your points. The 2G, 1 1/2 sound is at the heart of what I would consider my core sound concept. Ed Kleinhammer (esp during the Reiner and Martinon eras), Ed Anderson, Ray Premru, George Roberts and Dave Taylor are among my "sound idols" that make up the composite "trombone in my head". (to paraphrase Arnold Jacobs) I combine elements of that with the Vernon/Norrell "bigger, wider, darker yet still with center, focus and core" type sound.
I played a 1 1/2G from 8th grade through early undergrad and moved to a 59 and then a 60. (the 1G never really did it for me but Norrell, Hawes and you have done quite well with it) Coincidentally that change occurred as I began to play more orchestral and "classical" music. I played primarily jazz/commercial before that.
The 60 I felt was an inefficient, flawed piece but it helped me get the sound in my head out the bell the best. I played on one for a few years and then from '84-'06 played on several custom variants of the 60 made for me by Scot Laskey and Greg Black that addressed what I felt to be the shortcomings. As I was getting ready to have a new model made with a few more tweaks done, I decided to try the multitude of brands that had emerged over the years (remember the days when we had only Bach and Schilke?). After trying the new makes, I decided there were more than enough improvements in "the science" and choices available to render the hit-n-miss custom game moot.
The efficiencies I find most improved in the newer designs are the ease in response and ability to center the sound/pitch that was always the Achilles heel of the 60/1G for me.... it could be done but you had to REALLY work for it. Also the clarity of articulation and the upper register was much easier as well. Yes some of the designs achieved this with a slight loss in the depth of sound that drew me to these pieces to start with. There is often a trade to a degree. However in some, for me, the loss in this area was little or none.
Not to long ago I was subbing with another orchestra and the low brass took a "field trip" to a nearby dealer of high end "toys". We spent several hours trying out different stuff and comparing things. I did a 60-size mouthpiece-go-round with all that was on hand. (Griego, G&W, Hammond, Laskey, Black) After a lot of back-n-forth, just for grins, I threw a stock 60 in the mix... our jaws hit the floor. The basic conclusion was "how did we get by all those years with that thing". The new stuff had much or all of the size and depth of sound of the 60 but every other aspect had taken such a quantum leap forward that it seemed hardly a fair comparison. (BTW the tenors and tuba had similar experiences with their lots too)
Anyway, that's been my experiences and reasoning behind my statements. The new variants on the "big piece classics" still have the aspects to the sound that got us to play them in the first place but they have managed to fix/improve some of the things we gave up or allowed to be diminished in the trade. Perhaps the same can be said of the new 1 1/2G variants as well... I leave that to the players of that size piece for a more informed evaluation than I could provide.
If the 1G/60 still does it for some folks, great. (Randy Hawes recently traded his 1G for a Hammond 21BL and Charlie Vernon traded the Schilke 60cv for a Laskey 95D... Norrell and Bollinger still sound like $1M on theirs) I'm not meaning to imply I'm right/you're wrong, just relating my experience(s) of the past/present. We have more choices out there than ever. Try things and use what gets the sound in your head out the bell with the least physical effort possible.
-
ttf_tbarh
- Posts: 0
- Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 11:53 am
Who in their right mind plays a Bach 1 1/2G ??
Interesting stuff, Harold !
I have been going the opposite way than you ! ...Starting out with a big dual bore, heavy belled, thayerized Shires and several variants of 60/1G sized pieces, most notably Monette BT-1L for several years. ....and with great success i might add. Then I "stumbled into" the `34 70H which gave me a bad case of GAS (gear aquisition syndrome ) again. It soon dawned on me that a 60 sized piece took the edges of the 70H sound(in a bad way) and I downsized ending with a PHD V2BC, which for many will be to small for tenor!!...This was the pain threshold for me as I found the low register and power suffered, and i had to go bigger again. I can see that there is a lot of pieces out ther that needs examining but i would very muh like to know where the limit goes ! In other words how big can i go before i loose the magic of the 1 1/2G sized pieces.. A thing i have noted is that the older big pieces had a huge backbore/throat as they go bigger, but that does not neccesary means that they are more freeblowing!! The resonance has subjectively more to do with the "blow" ,and that does not neccesary correlate to throat/backbore size.. The 1G(the one i have ) for instance has a strangely good fit with my small conn.. A lot of things does not work with this piece but I suspect that with a tighter throat/backbore this piece could actually work really well..
tbarh
I have been going the opposite way than you ! ...Starting out with a big dual bore, heavy belled, thayerized Shires and several variants of 60/1G sized pieces, most notably Monette BT-1L for several years. ....and with great success i might add. Then I "stumbled into" the `34 70H which gave me a bad case of GAS (gear aquisition syndrome ) again. It soon dawned on me that a 60 sized piece took the edges of the 70H sound(in a bad way) and I downsized ending with a PHD V2BC, which for many will be to small for tenor!!...This was the pain threshold for me as I found the low register and power suffered, and i had to go bigger again. I can see that there is a lot of pieces out ther that needs examining but i would very muh like to know where the limit goes ! In other words how big can i go before i loose the magic of the 1 1/2G sized pieces.. A thing i have noted is that the older big pieces had a huge backbore/throat as they go bigger, but that does not neccesary means that they are more freeblowing!! The resonance has subjectively more to do with the "blow" ,and that does not neccesary correlate to throat/backbore size.. The 1G(the one i have ) for instance has a strangely good fit with my small conn.. A lot of things does not work with this piece but I suspect that with a tighter throat/backbore this piece could actually work really well..
tbarh
-
ttf_savio
- Posts: 0
- Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 11:58 am
Who in their right mind plays a Bach 1 1/2G ??
Quote from: Daniel Harris on Dec 13, 2008, 11:24PM
Harold and Chris, I'm sure both of you have far greater experience with many of the products of the newer mouthpiece makers than I. That said, I have never thought that the Bach 2G or 1.5G, arguably the original "old school" bass mouthpieces, were, at least for their size, especially efficient. Indeed, I'm inclined to argue that none of the Bach mouthpieces - at least the ones I'm familiar with - are about efficiency particularly. Rather, they are about the character of the sound in some sense - a sound that is gratifying and interesting in a way that I find difficult to express precisely in terms of "core, center, and color," although those factors are certainly involved. To the extent that I have tried some of the newer, "more efficient" mouthpieces, they seem to gain their efficiency often at the price of limiting the lower overtones in the sound in favor of the upper ones. This may be some people's idea of "color," but it is not mine. True, such mouthpieces may produce a clearer sound, with less expenditure of air, but it is a sound I generally find much less interesting; there seems to be less to listen for and listen to.
Dan Harris
Very interesting. I did blow a test for an old organ player in the church here. He has an absolute feeling of intonation and sound. I don't find the right word but very short he has good ears. I did blow a slow Bb major arpeggio on the Bach 1 1/2g and a laskey 85md. He could listen more upper overtones in the Laskey. For him the Bach had more of the deeper.
This man is not familiar with trombone and brass playing but for him the Bach gave the sound he was expecting from a trombone. I asked him just to give a neutral analyse about the sound and not what he prefer.
If you do such a test it will never tell the hole truth. At the time I did this I was playing the Bach as the main mouthpiece. The Laskey was a piece I had on loan that day and I never did practice anything on it. The sound change with in the same mouthpiece over time. But it still gives some hints.
Quote from: BassBoneFL on Dec 14, 2008, 08:22AM
As for your points. The 2G, 1 1/2 sound is at the heart of what I would consider my core sound concept. Ed Kleinhammer (esp during the Reiner and Martinon eras), Ed Anderson, Ray Premru, George Roberts and Dave Taylor are among my "sound idols" that make up the composite "trombone in my head". (to paraphrase Arnold Jacobs) I combine elements of that with the Vernon/Norrell "bigger, wider, darker yet still with center, focus and core" type sound.
For me the sound from Vernon is not darker than the people that play the smaller Bach mouthpieces. If I listen just to sound its just wider, not darker. For me its also seems to be "more" sound. from the bigger ones. But thats not the same as a projecting sound. And not the same as more decibel. Most tenor players can make the same level in decibel with smaller equipment.
If I listen to the bigger Bach mouthpieces 1g and 1 1/4g. I sometimes feel there are more darkness in these. Also from the old Schilke 60. But for me the sound spreads out and the darker overtones from a Bach 1 1/2g is more clear. And as the organ player told all the overtones are there but the Laskey had more of the upper and the lower was not so clear.
Quote from: BassBoneFL on Dec 14, 2008, 08:22AM
Anyway, that's been my experiences and reasoning behind my statements. The new variants on the "big piece classics" still have the aspects to the sound that got us to play them in the first place but they have managed to fix/improve some of the things we gave up or allowed to be diminished in the trade. Perhaps the same can be said of the new 1 1/2G variants as well... I leave that to the players of that size piece for a more informed evaluation than I could provide.
I feel the "new" 1 1/2g variants are easier to play especially down in the low pedal register. But very short, for me they all lack personality. (Thats just me) I'm back on my Bach 1 1/2g and I buy you all a beer guys if this is not my mouthpiece next year at this time.
Leif
Harold and Chris, I'm sure both of you have far greater experience with many of the products of the newer mouthpiece makers than I. That said, I have never thought that the Bach 2G or 1.5G, arguably the original "old school" bass mouthpieces, were, at least for their size, especially efficient. Indeed, I'm inclined to argue that none of the Bach mouthpieces - at least the ones I'm familiar with - are about efficiency particularly. Rather, they are about the character of the sound in some sense - a sound that is gratifying and interesting in a way that I find difficult to express precisely in terms of "core, center, and color," although those factors are certainly involved. To the extent that I have tried some of the newer, "more efficient" mouthpieces, they seem to gain their efficiency often at the price of limiting the lower overtones in the sound in favor of the upper ones. This may be some people's idea of "color," but it is not mine. True, such mouthpieces may produce a clearer sound, with less expenditure of air, but it is a sound I generally find much less interesting; there seems to be less to listen for and listen to.
Dan Harris
Very interesting. I did blow a test for an old organ player in the church here. He has an absolute feeling of intonation and sound. I don't find the right word but very short he has good ears. I did blow a slow Bb major arpeggio on the Bach 1 1/2g and a laskey 85md. He could listen more upper overtones in the Laskey. For him the Bach had more of the deeper.
This man is not familiar with trombone and brass playing but for him the Bach gave the sound he was expecting from a trombone. I asked him just to give a neutral analyse about the sound and not what he prefer.
If you do such a test it will never tell the hole truth. At the time I did this I was playing the Bach as the main mouthpiece. The Laskey was a piece I had on loan that day and I never did practice anything on it. The sound change with in the same mouthpiece over time. But it still gives some hints.
Quote from: BassBoneFL on Dec 14, 2008, 08:22AM
As for your points. The 2G, 1 1/2 sound is at the heart of what I would consider my core sound concept. Ed Kleinhammer (esp during the Reiner and Martinon eras), Ed Anderson, Ray Premru, George Roberts and Dave Taylor are among my "sound idols" that make up the composite "trombone in my head". (to paraphrase Arnold Jacobs) I combine elements of that with the Vernon/Norrell "bigger, wider, darker yet still with center, focus and core" type sound.
For me the sound from Vernon is not darker than the people that play the smaller Bach mouthpieces. If I listen just to sound its just wider, not darker. For me its also seems to be "more" sound. from the bigger ones. But thats not the same as a projecting sound. And not the same as more decibel. Most tenor players can make the same level in decibel with smaller equipment.
If I listen to the bigger Bach mouthpieces 1g and 1 1/4g. I sometimes feel there are more darkness in these. Also from the old Schilke 60. But for me the sound spreads out and the darker overtones from a Bach 1 1/2g is more clear. And as the organ player told all the overtones are there but the Laskey had more of the upper and the lower was not so clear.
Quote from: BassBoneFL on Dec 14, 2008, 08:22AM
Anyway, that's been my experiences and reasoning behind my statements. The new variants on the "big piece classics" still have the aspects to the sound that got us to play them in the first place but they have managed to fix/improve some of the things we gave up or allowed to be diminished in the trade. Perhaps the same can be said of the new 1 1/2G variants as well... I leave that to the players of that size piece for a more informed evaluation than I could provide.
I feel the "new" 1 1/2g variants are easier to play especially down in the low pedal register. But very short, for me they all lack personality. (Thats just me) I'm back on my Bach 1 1/2g and I buy you all a beer guys if this is not my mouthpiece next year at this time.
Leif
-
ttf_cozzagiorgi
- Posts: 0
- Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 12:32 pm
Who in their right mind plays a Bach 1 1/2G ??
I'm a Schlke guy to. I played on Schike 58, 59 an 60. Now I'm settled on the 59. I like the piece but there is one problem I always had with the Schilke pieces: they are dull between 
and 
I love the sound above and below but...
I've never had this problem on the bach 1 1/2 but there were other ones.
So what do you think wich 1 1/2 sized mouthpiece will give me the sound of the Schilke 59 without this dullness between c and f?
Have you experienced similar problems with the Schilke or is it just me?
and I love the sound above and below but... I've never had this problem on the bach 1 1/2 but there were other ones.
So what do you think wich 1 1/2 sized mouthpiece will give me the sound of the Schilke 59 without this dullness between c and f?
Have you experienced similar problems with the Schilke or is it just me?
-
ttf_Slidennis
- Posts: 0
- Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 12:00 pm
Who in their right mind plays a Bach 1 1/2G ??
Quote from: cozzagiorgi on Dec 18, 2008, 02:34AM(...)
the Schilke pieces: they are dull between and I love the sound above and below but...
I've never had this problem on the bach 1 1/2 but there were other ones.
(...)
DAZZIT!!! Exactly my feeling with the Schilke's mpcs!!!
Even the small shank 47 gave me that nasal tone in the middle range...
So is the 58 to me...
I assign that sound problem to the cylindrical throat, but need confirmation about that!
the Schilke pieces: they are dull between
and I love the sound above and below but... I've never had this problem on the bach 1 1/2 but there were other ones.
(...)
DAZZIT!!! Exactly my feeling with the Schilke's mpcs!!!
Even the small shank 47 gave me that nasal tone in the middle range...
So is the 58 to me...
I assign that sound problem to the cylindrical throat, but need confirmation about that!
-
ttf_blast
- Posts: 0
- Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 12:15 pm
Who in their right mind plays a Bach 1 1/2G ??
Quote from: Daniel Harris on Dec 13, 2008, 11:24PMI would like to pull the focus of this thread back a bit to deal with what I considered some very thought provoking posts in another thread, but that I hope will, ultimately, be taken as sufficiently on topic here. (Interesting how, whatever the topic, whenever the 1.5G comes up, discussion seems to revolve around it!)
What follows are some quotes from the General Mouthpiece Size (bass) thread in the Polls section.
Blast on 10/18:
Chris, could you spell out the change in audience taste to which you refer, and what you see as the implications thereof regarding mouthpiece size? I'm not trying to call you out, and I'm not saying you are wrong; I'll freely admit to being cluless here, but I would rather not be.
BassBoneFl 10/19:
Blast 10/19:
Harold and Chris, I'm sure both of you have far greater experience with many of the products of the newer mouthpiece makers than I. That said, I have never thought that the Bach 2G or 1.5G, arguably the original "old school" bass mouthpieces, were, at least for their size, especially efficient. Indeed, I'm inclined to argue that none of the Bach mouthpieces - at least the ones I'm familiar with - are about efficiency particularly. Rather, they are about the character of the sound in some sense - a sound that is gratifying and interesting in a way that I find difficult to express precisely in terms of "core, center, and color," although those factors are certainly involved. To the extent that I have tried some of the newer, "more efficient" mouthpieces, they seem to gain their efficiency often at the price of limiting the lower overtones in the sound in favor of the upper ones. This may be some people's idea of "color," but it is not mine. True, such mouthpieces may produce a clearer sound, with less expenditure of air, but it is a sound I generally find much less interesting; there seems to be less to listen for and listen to.
Therefore, Chris, when you say that the 1.5G would be "easier" than some of the new stuff, I have to wonder. First, if memory serves, you have said many times that the point about the 1.5G (the old Bach ones, anyway) is not that it is easy, but that it is worth the effort. Second, as suggested above, I suspect that the new stuff,no matter how much more efficient, is still going to be different.
Blast 10/19:
I agree with this entirely. The way I would it is: clean playing is great - sterile playing is not. I would simply raise the question whether more efficient equipment tends to produce more clinical, sterile playing - or is this exactly what you are saying already?
Blast 10/19:
No argument here either, but it does prompt the thought that perhaps one factor behind some equipment changes is frustration at "tallying the ledger" the same way over and over again.
Dan Harris
Sorry to have been so long getting back on this one Dan.....
I'll try to tackle each question in turn, and be brief.
First, my comment about audiences.... I am finding some areas of Joe public less keen on very loud and heavy brass than they were a decade or two back.... critics too are more interested in blend and subtlety than they used to be. Just my subjective take...
When I said that the 1.5 G size was easier than even the newest of the big modern designs, it was really in relation to stamina, endurance, or the ability to do many hours of playing in a day.... I agree that in many ways the 1.5G is just another set of compromises in most other respects, though the sound of the 1.5G is a thing hard won using larger equipment.
Does more efficient equipment lead to more clinical playing ? Of course not.... that is simply a mindset... and at the end of the day, we are simply talking tools here.... and tools are a minor detail on the way to music.
Better tools can (may) free us to focus on better music.... and professionals will always choose the equipment that gets results most securely.... if you miss notes, split notes or struggle in registers, you will simply not be there come the next payday....
98% player..... 2% equipment....
Some people just feel uncomfortable without that 2%...
Chris Stearn
What follows are some quotes from the General Mouthpiece Size (bass) thread in the Polls section.
Blast on 10/18:
Chris, could you spell out the change in audience taste to which you refer, and what you see as the implications thereof regarding mouthpiece size? I'm not trying to call you out, and I'm not saying you are wrong; I'll freely admit to being cluless here, but I would rather not be.
BassBoneFl 10/19:
Blast 10/19:
Harold and Chris, I'm sure both of you have far greater experience with many of the products of the newer mouthpiece makers than I. That said, I have never thought that the Bach 2G or 1.5G, arguably the original "old school" bass mouthpieces, were, at least for their size, especially efficient. Indeed, I'm inclined to argue that none of the Bach mouthpieces - at least the ones I'm familiar with - are about efficiency particularly. Rather, they are about the character of the sound in some sense - a sound that is gratifying and interesting in a way that I find difficult to express precisely in terms of "core, center, and color," although those factors are certainly involved. To the extent that I have tried some of the newer, "more efficient" mouthpieces, they seem to gain their efficiency often at the price of limiting the lower overtones in the sound in favor of the upper ones. This may be some people's idea of "color," but it is not mine. True, such mouthpieces may produce a clearer sound, with less expenditure of air, but it is a sound I generally find much less interesting; there seems to be less to listen for and listen to.
Therefore, Chris, when you say that the 1.5G would be "easier" than some of the new stuff, I have to wonder. First, if memory serves, you have said many times that the point about the 1.5G (the old Bach ones, anyway) is not that it is easy, but that it is worth the effort. Second, as suggested above, I suspect that the new stuff,no matter how much more efficient, is still going to be different.
Blast 10/19:
I agree with this entirely. The way I would it is: clean playing is great - sterile playing is not. I would simply raise the question whether more efficient equipment tends to produce more clinical, sterile playing - or is this exactly what you are saying already?
Blast 10/19:
No argument here either, but it does prompt the thought that perhaps one factor behind some equipment changes is frustration at "tallying the ledger" the same way over and over again.
Dan Harris
Sorry to have been so long getting back on this one Dan.....
I'll try to tackle each question in turn, and be brief.
First, my comment about audiences.... I am finding some areas of Joe public less keen on very loud and heavy brass than they were a decade or two back.... critics too are more interested in blend and subtlety than they used to be. Just my subjective take...
When I said that the 1.5 G size was easier than even the newest of the big modern designs, it was really in relation to stamina, endurance, or the ability to do many hours of playing in a day.... I agree that in many ways the 1.5G is just another set of compromises in most other respects, though the sound of the 1.5G is a thing hard won using larger equipment.
Does more efficient equipment lead to more clinical playing ? Of course not.... that is simply a mindset... and at the end of the day, we are simply talking tools here.... and tools are a minor detail on the way to music.
Better tools can (may) free us to focus on better music.... and professionals will always choose the equipment that gets results most securely.... if you miss notes, split notes or struggle in registers, you will simply not be there come the next payday....
98% player..... 2% equipment....
Some people just feel uncomfortable without that 2%...
Chris Stearn
-
ttf_cozzagiorgi
- Posts: 0
- Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 12:32 pm
Who in their right mind plays a Bach 1 1/2G ??
Quote from: Slidennis on Dec 18, 2008, 06:02AMDAZZIT!!! Exactly my feeling with the Schilke's mpcs!!!
Even the small shank 47 gave me that nasal tone in the middle range...
So is the 58 to me...
I assign that sound problem to the cylindrical throat, but need confirmation about that!
Let me know if you find the solution...
Even the small shank 47 gave me that nasal tone in the middle range...
So is the 58 to me...
I assign that sound problem to the cylindrical throat, but need confirmation about that!
Let me know if you find the solution...
-
ttf_Daniel Harris
- Posts: 0
- Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 11:58 am
Who in their right mind plays a Bach 1 1/2G ??
Quote from: BassBoneFL on Dec 14, 2008, 08:22AMHi Dan
Thanks for keeping our MD busy up there when he's not here. Say "hi" to Garth S and Dave S for me....
I played a 1 1/2G from 8th grade through early undergrad and moved to a 59 and then a 60. (the 1G never really did it for me but Norrell, Hawes and you have done quite well with it)
Hi Harold,
My apologies for the delay in responding to your post. Now that the seasonal madness is out of the way...
Garth and Dave were glad to hear from you and send their greetings.
It's very generous of you to mention me in the same line as 1G practitioners like Steve Norrell and Randy Hawes, but far too kind.
Thanks all the same.
I appreciate your presentation of your mouthpiece experience. I certainly have no quarrel with the sound models you are drawing upon and integrating. Nor do I challenge your experience of the mouthpieces you have tried. If I come at the issue from a slightly different angle, I suppose it might be because I wound up on the other side of the original 60/1G, or, more broadly, Schilke/Bach, divide. To me, the 60 already seemed more efficient than the 1G, but had a more "pastel" coloration to the sound, compared to the more "primary color" sound of the 1G. I think your comments about "depth of sound" are on point here. Although they are not necessarily saying exactly the same thing, I think Cozzagiorgi's and Slidennis's posts also bear on this point. Thus, I can imagine that the tradeoffs between the 60 and the newer pieces might seem smaller than those between the 1G and the new pieces. Of course, if one had been inclined toward the 60 to begin with, I imagine the tradeoffs might seem all the more worthwhile.
Personally, I hear a stronger familial resemblance between the sound of the Bach 1G and the Bach 1.5G, despite their dramatic differences in cup, throat, and backbore size, than between the Bach 1.5G and the new large pieces, to the extent I have had experience with them. Thus, I wind up in the same camp as Savio, perceiving a real tradeoff between ease of playing and personality.
So, we get back to the question of how much a mouthpiece's shape, as opposed to its size, affects the way it plays. My hunch is that a major part of this may have to do with the amplitude of lip vibration allowed by all these factors taken together. Other things being equal, I would think a smaller cup diameter would necessarily result in a smaller maximum possible amplitude than a larger one. This difference, in turn, I suspect, affects the nature of the "grain" in the sound, with smaller amplitudes producing a more finely grained sound than larger ones. If, as Tbarh suggests, there is a "magic" in the 1.5 size as such, I suspect it has to do with this. Some people may prefer a finely grained sound, others the reverse. Similarly, different instruments may be more congenial to a finer or a larger grained sound.
Further, I suspect that a shallower cup, tighter backbore, and, surely, a flatter/wider rim might also limit the amplitude of lip vibration. Thus, the question arises how much shallower/tighter/flatter the other dimensions of a mouthpiece with a 60/1G size rim would have to be to produce as finely grained a sound as a 1.5G, and with what tradeoffs. One potential form of imbalance in a mouthpiece would be a cup, backbore, or rim contour that limits the amplitude of lip vibration to something substantially less than the rim diameter would otherwise allow. I have encountered a few mouthpieces of that kind and I thought that I was starting to run the risk of lip injury if I played too loudly on them. I believe someone on the Forum stated that Mark Curry argues that the volume of a mouthpiece is more important than the shape. Perhaps this is part of the reason why. It may also suggest that there really is something to the "alpha angles" concept of GR trumpet mouthpieces.
Anyway, my sense is that Bach did a pretty good job in keeping those relationships in roughly the same balance in the 1.5G and the 1G. If some, such as Chris (if memory serves), find the 1.25G to be neither fish nor fowl, so to speak, perhaps this suggests that size really needs a throat and backbore all its own.
None of this is to suggest that the effort to go beyond the Bach designs isn't worthwhile; for some players, including you, it has proven very worthwhile indeed. Nor am I unwilling to explore new designs myself; I just haven't found anything yet that quite convinces me.
Dan Harris
Thanks for keeping our MD busy up there when he's not here. Say "hi" to Garth S and Dave S for me....
I played a 1 1/2G from 8th grade through early undergrad and moved to a 59 and then a 60. (the 1G never really did it for me but Norrell, Hawes and you have done quite well with it)
Hi Harold,
My apologies for the delay in responding to your post. Now that the seasonal madness is out of the way...
Garth and Dave were glad to hear from you and send their greetings.
It's very generous of you to mention me in the same line as 1G practitioners like Steve Norrell and Randy Hawes, but far too kind.
Thanks all the same.I appreciate your presentation of your mouthpiece experience. I certainly have no quarrel with the sound models you are drawing upon and integrating. Nor do I challenge your experience of the mouthpieces you have tried. If I come at the issue from a slightly different angle, I suppose it might be because I wound up on the other side of the original 60/1G, or, more broadly, Schilke/Bach, divide. To me, the 60 already seemed more efficient than the 1G, but had a more "pastel" coloration to the sound, compared to the more "primary color" sound of the 1G. I think your comments about "depth of sound" are on point here. Although they are not necessarily saying exactly the same thing, I think Cozzagiorgi's and Slidennis's posts also bear on this point. Thus, I can imagine that the tradeoffs between the 60 and the newer pieces might seem smaller than those between the 1G and the new pieces. Of course, if one had been inclined toward the 60 to begin with, I imagine the tradeoffs might seem all the more worthwhile.
Personally, I hear a stronger familial resemblance between the sound of the Bach 1G and the Bach 1.5G, despite their dramatic differences in cup, throat, and backbore size, than between the Bach 1.5G and the new large pieces, to the extent I have had experience with them. Thus, I wind up in the same camp as Savio, perceiving a real tradeoff between ease of playing and personality.
So, we get back to the question of how much a mouthpiece's shape, as opposed to its size, affects the way it plays. My hunch is that a major part of this may have to do with the amplitude of lip vibration allowed by all these factors taken together. Other things being equal, I would think a smaller cup diameter would necessarily result in a smaller maximum possible amplitude than a larger one. This difference, in turn, I suspect, affects the nature of the "grain" in the sound, with smaller amplitudes producing a more finely grained sound than larger ones. If, as Tbarh suggests, there is a "magic" in the 1.5 size as such, I suspect it has to do with this. Some people may prefer a finely grained sound, others the reverse. Similarly, different instruments may be more congenial to a finer or a larger grained sound.
Further, I suspect that a shallower cup, tighter backbore, and, surely, a flatter/wider rim might also limit the amplitude of lip vibration. Thus, the question arises how much shallower/tighter/flatter the other dimensions of a mouthpiece with a 60/1G size rim would have to be to produce as finely grained a sound as a 1.5G, and with what tradeoffs. One potential form of imbalance in a mouthpiece would be a cup, backbore, or rim contour that limits the amplitude of lip vibration to something substantially less than the rim diameter would otherwise allow. I have encountered a few mouthpieces of that kind and I thought that I was starting to run the risk of lip injury if I played too loudly on them. I believe someone on the Forum stated that Mark Curry argues that the volume of a mouthpiece is more important than the shape. Perhaps this is part of the reason why. It may also suggest that there really is something to the "alpha angles" concept of GR trumpet mouthpieces.
Anyway, my sense is that Bach did a pretty good job in keeping those relationships in roughly the same balance in the 1.5G and the 1G. If some, such as Chris (if memory serves), find the 1.25G to be neither fish nor fowl, so to speak, perhaps this suggests that size really needs a throat and backbore all its own.
None of this is to suggest that the effort to go beyond the Bach designs isn't worthwhile; for some players, including you, it has proven very worthwhile indeed. Nor am I unwilling to explore new designs myself; I just haven't found anything yet that quite convinces me.
Dan Harris
-
ttf_Daniel Harris
- Posts: 0
- Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 11:58 am
Who in their right mind plays a Bach 1 1/2G ??
Quote from: blast on Dec 21, 2008, 04:31PMI am finding some areas of Joe public less keen on very loud and heavy brass than they were a decade or two back.... critics too are more interested in blend and subtlety than they used to be. Just my subjective take...
Hi Chris,
Thanks for clarifying the point about audiences and critics. Again, I confess to being clueless what the audiences and critics around here think about these things, but I certainly appreciate your take on the matter.
Quote from: blast on Dec 21, 2008, 04:31PMWhen I said that the 1.5 G size was easier than even the newest of the big modern designs, it was really in relation to stamina, endurance, or the ability to do many hours of playing in a day....
This is very interesting. I suppose everyone is different, but it has generally seemed to me that the smaller the mouthpiece, the more likely endurance was to become an issue; trumpet and horn players run into trouble sooner than tenor trombonists, who run into trouble sooner than bass trombonists. Certainly my personal experience has been that endurance is more of an issue in the limited amount of tenor playing that I do than in my bass playing. I would have expected similar results within the range of mouthpiece sizes for a particular instrument, barring a major mismatch between the mouthpiece size and the tessitura of the music being played.
Quote from: blast on Dec 21, 2008, 04:31PMDoes more efficient equipment lead to more clinical playing ? Of course not.... that is simply a mindset... and at the end of the day, we are simply talking tools here.... and tools are a minor detail on the way to music.
Better tools can (may) free us to focus on better music.... and professionals will always choose the equipment that gets results most securely.... if you miss notes, split notes or struggle in registers, you will simply not be there come the next payday....
Obviously, we all make risk/benefit judgments about the equipment we play, and no doubt we all rule out some gear as not worth the risk, or just plain not up to the job. That said, I suppose there is always some risk in just picking up the horn, whatever its configuration. Otherwise, why would we even speak of tradeoffs when choosing equipment? I would have thought that one aspect of "clinical excellence" would be an element of risk aversion - an unwillingness to take the risk of going beyond a literal technical accuracy to something more musically engaging or compelling. But do I misunderstand what you mean by clinical excellence?
Dan Harris
Hi Chris,
Thanks for clarifying the point about audiences and critics. Again, I confess to being clueless what the audiences and critics around here think about these things, but I certainly appreciate your take on the matter.
Quote from: blast on Dec 21, 2008, 04:31PMWhen I said that the 1.5 G size was easier than even the newest of the big modern designs, it was really in relation to stamina, endurance, or the ability to do many hours of playing in a day....
This is very interesting. I suppose everyone is different, but it has generally seemed to me that the smaller the mouthpiece, the more likely endurance was to become an issue; trumpet and horn players run into trouble sooner than tenor trombonists, who run into trouble sooner than bass trombonists. Certainly my personal experience has been that endurance is more of an issue in the limited amount of tenor playing that I do than in my bass playing. I would have expected similar results within the range of mouthpiece sizes for a particular instrument, barring a major mismatch between the mouthpiece size and the tessitura of the music being played.
Quote from: blast on Dec 21, 2008, 04:31PMDoes more efficient equipment lead to more clinical playing ? Of course not.... that is simply a mindset... and at the end of the day, we are simply talking tools here.... and tools are a minor detail on the way to music.
Better tools can (may) free us to focus on better music.... and professionals will always choose the equipment that gets results most securely.... if you miss notes, split notes or struggle in registers, you will simply not be there come the next payday....
Obviously, we all make risk/benefit judgments about the equipment we play, and no doubt we all rule out some gear as not worth the risk, or just plain not up to the job. That said, I suppose there is always some risk in just picking up the horn, whatever its configuration. Otherwise, why would we even speak of tradeoffs when choosing equipment? I would have thought that one aspect of "clinical excellence" would be an element of risk aversion - an unwillingness to take the risk of going beyond a literal technical accuracy to something more musically engaging or compelling. But do I misunderstand what you mean by clinical excellence?
Dan Harris
-
ttf_savio
- Posts: 0
- Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 11:58 am
Who in their right mind plays a Bach 1 1/2G ??
Very interesting Dan. Before the other trombone players respond I have to admit I have been in very doubt when going to 1.5 size. I have found the Bach to have the sound I like. But some other new design to be more comfortable to play. The only thing I'm sure of is that they all give me some kind of sound I like. But Bach do the best sound for me.
I ask myself sometime what are I'm doing. The point is to make music like Chris say. People play on every size and every kind of mouthpiece and do make nice sound and music. Sometimes I have been thinking just to plug in the 1 1/4 or 59 size which I have been playing all my life. It seems to be the most easy thing to do. I did try very briefly a 85md and it felt so easy and nice. Sound? well its a nice sound and anyway we are talking small nuances which maybe only can be heard by the player?
Result, sound, ease of playing, where do I play? The problem for me have been not to stay with one and learn it. The best result is of course when staying long with one and adopt to it. When consider what job and how much I can practice ?
Why do I think so much in mouthpiece? Its only a tool to do a job like Chris say. Who cares if you do the job well? The point is still only to make music and make a sound that fits in among the ensemble we play together with.
Mouthpieces are mysterious but maybe I do some wrong when thinking so much on them. I did play a 59 for many years and didn't think neither on instrument or mouthpiece.
This was maybe some off topic again and I look forward to see some responds to Dan´s fine posts
Leif.
I ask myself sometime what are I'm doing. The point is to make music like Chris say. People play on every size and every kind of mouthpiece and do make nice sound and music. Sometimes I have been thinking just to plug in the 1 1/4 or 59 size which I have been playing all my life. It seems to be the most easy thing to do. I did try very briefly a 85md and it felt so easy and nice. Sound? well its a nice sound and anyway we are talking small nuances which maybe only can be heard by the player?
Result, sound, ease of playing, where do I play? The problem for me have been not to stay with one and learn it. The best result is of course when staying long with one and adopt to it. When consider what job and how much I can practice ?
Why do I think so much in mouthpiece? Its only a tool to do a job like Chris say. Who cares if you do the job well? The point is still only to make music and make a sound that fits in among the ensemble we play together with.
Mouthpieces are mysterious but maybe I do some wrong when thinking so much on them. I did play a 59 for many years and didn't think neither on instrument or mouthpiece.
This was maybe some off topic again and I look forward to see some responds to Dan´s fine posts
Leif.
-
ttf_Birdy
- Posts: 0
- Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 11:58 am
Who in their right mind plays a Bach 1 1/2G ??
Quote from: Daniel Harris on Dec 23, 2008, 08:50PM
This is very interesting. I suppose everyone is different, but it has generally seemed to me that the smaller the mouthpiece, the more likely endurance was to become an issue; trumpet and horn players run into trouble sooner than tenor trombonists, who run into trouble sooner than bass trombonists. Certainly my personal experience has been that endurance is more of an issue in the limited amount of tenor playing that I do than in my bass playing. I would have expected similar results within the range of mouthpiece sizes for a particular instrument, barring a major mismatch between the mouthpiece size and the tessitura of the music being played.
To me it depends on what endurance you're talking about though. On a smaller mouthpiece it's usually my chops that are first to go. On a big mouthpiece it's usually my upper stomach muscles that go first.
Maybe because I've played tenor for many years before switching to Bass I personally find that I've better endurance on the 1.5 size than I have on the 1 size and it all boils down to the amount of air that is needed to make the piece work.
This is very interesting. I suppose everyone is different, but it has generally seemed to me that the smaller the mouthpiece, the more likely endurance was to become an issue; trumpet and horn players run into trouble sooner than tenor trombonists, who run into trouble sooner than bass trombonists. Certainly my personal experience has been that endurance is more of an issue in the limited amount of tenor playing that I do than in my bass playing. I would have expected similar results within the range of mouthpiece sizes for a particular instrument, barring a major mismatch between the mouthpiece size and the tessitura of the music being played.
To me it depends on what endurance you're talking about though. On a smaller mouthpiece it's usually my chops that are first to go. On a big mouthpiece it's usually my upper stomach muscles that go first.
Maybe because I've played tenor for many years before switching to Bass I personally find that I've better endurance on the 1.5 size than I have on the 1 size and it all boils down to the amount of air that is needed to make the piece work.
-
ttf_blast
- Posts: 0
- Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 12:15 pm
Who in their right mind plays a Bach 1 1/2G ??
Dan.... thanks for your highly perceptive posts. I particularly like your description of the sounds of bigger and smaller bass mouthpieces and I can see your reasoning behind the observations about amplitude. My comments about endurance may be more personally biased and the whole suitability of different rim widths for different embouchure types has been very well covered by Doug Elliott in other topics, so I think it best to leave that to rest.
Musical tastes are very location sensitive and (thankfully)vary from place to place, and country to country... so any observations about changing taste are merely what I have gathered from my own local experience. To me, the sound qualities and style that you will find in the London orchestras is little (if at all)changed from the ideal that existed in my student days back in the seventies... and that style and sound is different to others in the U.S. and mainland Europe... and with different tastes you often find (slightly)different equipment choices.
Does more efficient equipment make us more sterile as performers ? I very much hope not, as I have taken the route of choosing the equipment that allows me to most easily do the job I have to, in the way I want to. As I get older and remain as lazy as ever, it seems a no-brainer that I make life as easy as possible.
I hear too many young players struggling with trombones and mouthpieces that do not fit them, just because player X or Y plays that setup... so many wasted hours of work and effort when they have a totally different physical setup to the player they admire.
... and while I am ranting... how many players work in a full size professional symphony orchestra ? That job is very specialized and calls for very specialized equipment... yet school orchestras the world over find themselves living with the biggest symphonic trombones in their sections.... for the most part, that's plain crazy....
Play what works for you and what you do....
theoretically simple...
but of course, it's not in practice,
Chris Stearn
Musical tastes are very location sensitive and (thankfully)vary from place to place, and country to country... so any observations about changing taste are merely what I have gathered from my own local experience. To me, the sound qualities and style that you will find in the London orchestras is little (if at all)changed from the ideal that existed in my student days back in the seventies... and that style and sound is different to others in the U.S. and mainland Europe... and with different tastes you often find (slightly)different equipment choices.
Does more efficient equipment make us more sterile as performers ? I very much hope not, as I have taken the route of choosing the equipment that allows me to most easily do the job I have to, in the way I want to. As I get older and remain as lazy as ever, it seems a no-brainer that I make life as easy as possible.
I hear too many young players struggling with trombones and mouthpieces that do not fit them, just because player X or Y plays that setup... so many wasted hours of work and effort when they have a totally different physical setup to the player they admire.
... and while I am ranting... how many players work in a full size professional symphony orchestra ? That job is very specialized and calls for very specialized equipment... yet school orchestras the world over find themselves living with the biggest symphonic trombones in their sections.... for the most part, that's plain crazy....
Play what works for you and what you do....
theoretically simple...
but of course, it's not in practice,
Chris Stearn
-
ttf_savio
- Posts: 0
- Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 11:58 am
Who in their right mind plays a Bach 1 1/2G ??
I play mostly in a little ensemble, so the Bach 1.5 is the best mouthpiece in my group. Its colour full and can change character with the ensemble better. Chris have a point here, you shouldn't use a bazooka to hit a rabbit.
2% equipment and 98% player/practice got me thinking.
Endurance have to do with mouthpiece size in relations with instruments. I believe a 1.5 is balanced to most bass trombones. We should maybe not call it small because its maybe that size that balance best to most bass trombones.
I see most of you young US bass trombone use the biggest equipment no matter where you play. Not all but some. Maybe you should think a little before you choose?
I don't think you can get that "classic" sound on bigger mouthpieces. I see many people here also orchestra players have that sound in their mind. I did use a 59 size and could not understand why I didn't get the sound I love. I'm not that clever, was my thought. But in with the Bach 1 1/2g a year ago and voila.......there it was. There is only one way to get it. Practice sound and have a good 1 1/2g size mouthpiece. Most brands will do the trick but its impossible on bigger stuff.
Leif
Leif
2% equipment and 98% player/practice got me thinking.
Endurance have to do with mouthpiece size in relations with instruments. I believe a 1.5 is balanced to most bass trombones. We should maybe not call it small because its maybe that size that balance best to most bass trombones.
I see most of you young US bass trombone use the biggest equipment no matter where you play. Not all but some. Maybe you should think a little before you choose?
I don't think you can get that "classic" sound on bigger mouthpieces. I see many people here also orchestra players have that sound in their mind. I did use a 59 size and could not understand why I didn't get the sound I love. I'm not that clever, was my thought. But in with the Bach 1 1/2g a year ago and voila.......there it was. There is only one way to get it. Practice sound and have a good 1 1/2g size mouthpiece. Most brands will do the trick but its impossible on bigger stuff.
Leif
Leif
-
ttf_slidejj
- Posts: 0
- Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 11:59 am
Who in their right mind plays a Bach 1 1/2G ??
Quote from: savio on Dec 24, 2008, 06:41AM
I don't think you can get that "classic" sound on bigger mouthpieces. I see many people here also orchestra players have that sound in their mind. I did use a 59 size and could not understand why I didn't get the sound I love. I'm not that clever, was my thought. But in with the Bach 1 1/2g a year ago and voila.......there it was. There is only one way to get it. Practice sound and have a good 1 1/2g size mouthpiece. Most brands will do the trick but its impossible on bigger stuff.
Leif
Although I can't get that "classic" sound out of a 60/1G size mouthpiece I've heard some players who can or at least come very close. I have a friend that gets a very compact/focused/classic sound from a 1G. He seldom touches a tenor but I was amazed at his compact sound and endurance when he borrowed my Olds Opera, stuck in a 3G and filled in for the principal trombonist in an orchestra I play in last month. Large mouthpieces just work for him.
In my location in the U.S. the classic sound seems to be more accepted than in some areas, but we have to live with the fact that preferred sound concepts are evolving and not just for bass trombone. I think it makes equipment choices more difficult for a lot of bass trombonists.
I don't think you can get that "classic" sound on bigger mouthpieces. I see many people here also orchestra players have that sound in their mind. I did use a 59 size and could not understand why I didn't get the sound I love. I'm not that clever, was my thought. But in with the Bach 1 1/2g a year ago and voila.......there it was. There is only one way to get it. Practice sound and have a good 1 1/2g size mouthpiece. Most brands will do the trick but its impossible on bigger stuff.
Leif
Although I can't get that "classic" sound out of a 60/1G size mouthpiece I've heard some players who can or at least come very close. I have a friend that gets a very compact/focused/classic sound from a 1G. He seldom touches a tenor but I was amazed at his compact sound and endurance when he borrowed my Olds Opera, stuck in a 3G and filled in for the principal trombonist in an orchestra I play in last month. Large mouthpieces just work for him.
In my location in the U.S. the classic sound seems to be more accepted than in some areas, but we have to live with the fact that preferred sound concepts are evolving and not just for bass trombone. I think it makes equipment choices more difficult for a lot of bass trombonists.
-
ttf_Gabe Langfur
- Posts: 0
- Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 12:00 pm
Who in their right mind plays a Bach 1 1/2G ??
Some on the forum who have heard me play can attest that I make a very focused sound with lots of overtones on a Laskey 93D. I listened to a recital I did recently, and I was frankly surprised at how similar the character of sound was to some of my favorite solo bass trombone recordings that were played on 1 1/2 G's and the like.
I don't write this to toot my horn, just that I know it can be done. It takes air and discipline and a clear concept of sound.
I don't write this to toot my horn, just that I know it can be done. It takes air and discipline and a clear concept of sound.
-
ttf_anonymous
- Posts: 0
- Joined: Thu Apr 05, 2018 10:09 pm
Who in their right mind plays a Bach 1 1/2G ??
Quote from: savio on Dec 24, 2008, 06:41AMI play mostly in a little ensemble, so the Bach 1.5 is the best mouthpiece in my group. Its colour full and can change character with the ensemble better. Chris have a point here, you shouldn't use a bazooka to hit a rabbit.
I see most of you young US bass trombone use the biggest equipment no matter where you play. Not all but some. Maybe you should think a little before you choose?
I don't think you can get that "classic" sound on bigger mouthpieces.
I think this is/has been going a little too far. What was originally a thread about the suitability of one mouthpiece (1.5G), seems to be becoming somewhat of a bashfest against other mouthpieces (larger mouthpieces) and more disturbingly the people who decide to play the others. Perhaps a "Who in... a 29+ mm mouthpiece?" thread is in order.
I like playing a large bore horn with a very large mouthpiece. I like the sound, I like the feel,.... There are lots of things I enjoy about it and very few that I do not. If I had a light single valve bass in addition to my current horn, I would probably play it with a 2G for a lighter, clearer (though clarity is extremely important to me on my current as well) sound and enjoy it. But I would play it with that size mouthpiece to provide a bigger contrast to to the bigger horn, and the bigger combo would be my "voice."
How about this to ponder on- With all respect to his accomplishments, I do not like George Robert's sound. I find it somewhat tubby. I also am not particularly fond of (to give an opposite in equipment) of the little bit I have heard from Blair Bollinger, as it sounds a bit thick to me. Of course they are both great players, but they are not really what I enjoy sound wise (though I prefer Bollinger's sound to Roberts').
I am not especially fond of my 60 anymore, but I have used it or a larger mouthpiece to great effect in small ensembles, with an electrified rock band, orchestra,.... and only once or twice have I had problems (the rock band!). Never in a small ensemble (mostly quintet, but also some 10-piece).
I see most of you young US bass trombone use the biggest equipment no matter where you play. Not all but some. Maybe you should think a little before you choose?
I don't think you can get that "classic" sound on bigger mouthpieces.
I think this is/has been going a little too far. What was originally a thread about the suitability of one mouthpiece (1.5G), seems to be becoming somewhat of a bashfest against other mouthpieces (larger mouthpieces) and more disturbingly the people who decide to play the others. Perhaps a "Who in... a 29+ mm mouthpiece?" thread is in order.
I like playing a large bore horn with a very large mouthpiece. I like the sound, I like the feel,.... There are lots of things I enjoy about it and very few that I do not. If I had a light single valve bass in addition to my current horn, I would probably play it with a 2G for a lighter, clearer (though clarity is extremely important to me on my current as well) sound and enjoy it. But I would play it with that size mouthpiece to provide a bigger contrast to to the bigger horn, and the bigger combo would be my "voice."
How about this to ponder on- With all respect to his accomplishments, I do not like George Robert's sound. I find it somewhat tubby. I also am not particularly fond of (to give an opposite in equipment) of the little bit I have heard from Blair Bollinger, as it sounds a bit thick to me. Of course they are both great players, but they are not really what I enjoy sound wise (though I prefer Bollinger's sound to Roberts').
I am not especially fond of my 60 anymore, but I have used it or a larger mouthpiece to great effect in small ensembles, with an electrified rock band, orchestra,.... and only once or twice have I had problems (the rock band!
). Never in a small ensemble (mostly quintet, but also some 10-piece).-
ttf_savio
- Posts: 0
- Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 11:58 am
Who in their right mind plays a Bach 1 1/2G ??
professionals like Gabe and other great bass players can make the sound they want whatever they play. But I'm sure it also take a lot of practice and years on the horn to get there. I also understand the development is going on. I'm talking to much from my stand and thats in a very quiet and small ensemble. I'm not familiar with all the demands in other circumstances
But I have played professionally in most orchestras in Norway long time ago and know something about it. What often shows up in a big orchestra is to make an edge to the hole bass group with cello, bass, bassoons and tuba. Not overblow but blend and make an edge to them. With a 1.5 you can do it easy without overblowing. Whit a 60 you must be able to make and edge in your sound also in soft playing. Not easy for all. Playing loud with control and still balanced to the rest of the orchestra is sometimes a part of it. Should not be problem on any mouthpiece.
Bob, I was maybe provocative but that was also the meaning...... But don't you think there are many that use bazookas to hit the rabbit? Sorry lack of english.
I love the sound from Hawes CD made on a 1g. I would not say no thanks if I could get his sound for free. Its impossible for me. Therefore a 1.5g and I see that should be the choice of many young players playing equipment that you can listen is far to big for them and out of control.
Leif
But I have played professionally in most orchestras in Norway long time ago and know something about it. What often shows up in a big orchestra is to make an edge to the hole bass group with cello, bass, bassoons and tuba. Not overblow but blend and make an edge to them. With a 1.5 you can do it easy without overblowing. Whit a 60 you must be able to make and edge in your sound also in soft playing. Not easy for all. Playing loud with control and still balanced to the rest of the orchestra is sometimes a part of it. Should not be problem on any mouthpiece.
Bob, I was maybe provocative but that was also the meaning......
But don't you think there are many that use bazookas to hit the rabbit? Sorry lack of english. I love the sound from Hawes CD made on a 1g. I would not say no thanks if I could get his sound for free. Its impossible for me. Therefore a 1.5g and I see that should be the choice of many young players playing equipment that you can listen is far to big for them and out of control.
Leif
-
ttf_MoominDave
- Posts: 0
- Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 11:59 am
Who in their right mind plays a Bach 1 1/2G ??
Thought I might share with you all an equipment choice I saw the other day, when guesting on 2nd bone with a very good brass band recently [This thread at this point in time seems to be as good a venue as any, and I'm sure the idea will appeal to Bob!]...
The bass bone was playing a 10.5" bell K&H instrument (single bore .562", I think) - with a Wick 2 tuba mouthpiece! The 2 is listed with an ID of 32 mm, and is compared by the Wick literature to a Bach 18 or Schilke 67; in more trombonely terms, given the size difference between a Greg Black 1G and 0G, this would approximate to something like a -5G...
I was pleasantly surprised by the sound the player made under certain circumstances - he is obviously a good musician, with a robust embouchure. Using this giga-bucket, the tendency of the 10.5" bell to create ugly spread was almost totally reduced, an effect that hadn't occurred to me. And when it came to nailing the crap out of notes between low C and middle-of-the-bass-clef F, the effect tended towards the majestic. But every other aspect of playing had been sacrificed on the altar of trigger-range edge... At dynamics below a strong forte, the sound was indistinguishable from that of a euphonium; ditto for pitches above middle F. Pedal notes were no better than a player on a much smaller piece. And in the favoured musical scope of playing somewhat low and very loud, endurance was seriously compromised.
What gets me (as somebody whose most regular playing is with a good brass band on bass trombone, and is unable to join a seriously good band - like the one mentioned - due to poor location) is that people rate this player up with the very best in the genre. Don't get me wrong - there's an excellent amateur player fighting against that extraordinary mouthpiece choice - but musicians who would pick holes in the playing of a player of any other instrument that lost the amount of accuracy and characteristic tone that this player does completely overlook this in the case of the bass trombone, seemingly picking out only the plus points that I've noted.
This player isn't alone either - a number of other players in top bands play on massive things. Is this really all that people want from the bass trombone? I hope I'm not wasting my time in cultivating a characteristic trombone tone throughout the dynamic range and as high an accuracy as can be mustered... It's all a bit disquieting.
The bass bone was playing a 10.5" bell K&H instrument (single bore .562", I think) - with a Wick 2 tuba mouthpiece! The 2 is listed with an ID of 32 mm, and is compared by the Wick literature to a Bach 18 or Schilke 67; in more trombonely terms, given the size difference between a Greg Black 1G and 0G, this would approximate to something like a -5G...
I was pleasantly surprised by the sound the player made under certain circumstances - he is obviously a good musician, with a robust embouchure. Using this giga-bucket, the tendency of the 10.5" bell to create ugly spread was almost totally reduced, an effect that hadn't occurred to me. And when it came to nailing the crap out of notes between low C and middle-of-the-bass-clef F, the effect tended towards the majestic. But every other aspect of playing had been sacrificed on the altar of trigger-range edge... At dynamics below a strong forte, the sound was indistinguishable from that of a euphonium; ditto for pitches above middle F. Pedal notes were no better than a player on a much smaller piece. And in the favoured musical scope of playing somewhat low and very loud, endurance was seriously compromised.
What gets me (as somebody whose most regular playing is with a good brass band on bass trombone, and is unable to join a seriously good band - like the one mentioned - due to poor location) is that people rate this player up with the very best in the genre. Don't get me wrong - there's an excellent amateur player fighting against that extraordinary mouthpiece choice - but musicians who would pick holes in the playing of a player of any other instrument that lost the amount of accuracy and characteristic tone that this player does completely overlook this in the case of the bass trombone, seemingly picking out only the plus points that I've noted.
This player isn't alone either - a number of other players in top bands play on massive things. Is this really all that people want from the bass trombone? I hope I'm not wasting my time in cultivating a characteristic trombone tone throughout the dynamic range and as high an accuracy as can be mustered... It's all a bit disquieting.
-
ttf_CRWV
- Posts: 0
- Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 11:59 am
Who in their right mind plays a Bach 1 1/2G ??
Hey Dave, What do you want to be that the very same guy would make a wonderful sound, with all the power he could need, on a Bach50/R9 etc.,. and a Laskey 95D...
-
ttf_anonymous
- Posts: 0
- Joined: Thu Apr 05, 2018 10:09 pm
Who in their right mind plays a Bach 1 1/2G ??
Quote from: savio on Dec 24, 2008, 11:32AMBut don't you think there are many that use bazookas to hit the rabbit?
I think the comparison to a bazooka is MUCH more apt with Dave's example of a Wick 2. A 60, 1G,... they're big mouthpieces but they're not that big.
Quote from: savio on Dec 24, 2008, 11:32AMBut I'm sure it also take a lot of practice and years on the horn to get there. I also understand the development is going on...
What often shows up in a big orchestra is to make an edge to the hole bass group with cello, bass, bassoons and tuba. Not overblow but blend and make an edge to them. With a 1.5 you can do it easy without overblowing. Whit a 60 you must be able to make and edge in your sound also in soft playing. Not easy for all. Playing loud with control and still balanced to the rest of the orchestra is sometimes a part of it. Should not be problem on any mouthpiece.
I see that (1.5G) should be the choice of many young players playing equipment that you can listen is far to big for them and out of control.
I will readily admit that I have some problems in my playing (articulation and pitch consistency, NEITHER of which I blame on any mouthpiece), but I didn't sound terribly different on a 1.5G than I do on my 60 and I can edge at a soft volume on a 60. I don't at all discount that other people play mouthpieces that are too big for them, but I think for some people the problem is psychological.
I screwed around with a Bach 25 for a while, but the 2A was much better for what I wanted it for. Though a 25 with a 60-ish cup might be mildly interesting.
Endurance-wise, I can last longer the larger and feel better on a larger mouthpiece (definitely in regards to different instruments, and to some lesser extent in regards to different mouthpieces on the same horn).
I think the comparison to a bazooka is MUCH more apt with Dave's example of a Wick 2. A 60, 1G,... they're big mouthpieces but they're not that big.
Quote from: savio on Dec 24, 2008, 11:32AMBut I'm sure it also take a lot of practice and years on the horn to get there. I also understand the development is going on...
What often shows up in a big orchestra is to make an edge to the hole bass group with cello, bass, bassoons and tuba. Not overblow but blend and make an edge to them. With a 1.5 you can do it easy without overblowing. Whit a 60 you must be able to make and edge in your sound also in soft playing. Not easy for all. Playing loud with control and still balanced to the rest of the orchestra is sometimes a part of it. Should not be problem on any mouthpiece.
I see that (1.5G) should be the choice of many young players playing equipment that you can listen is far to big for them and out of control.
I will readily admit that I have some problems in my playing (articulation and pitch consistency, NEITHER of which I blame on any mouthpiece), but I didn't sound terribly different on a 1.5G than I do on my 60 and I can edge at a soft volume on a 60. I don't at all discount that other people play mouthpieces that are too big for them, but I think for some people the problem is psychological.
I screwed around with a Bach 25 for a while, but the 2A was much better for what I wanted it for. Though a 25 with a 60-ish cup might be mildly interesting.
Endurance-wise, I can last longer the larger and feel better on a larger mouthpiece (definitely in regards to different instruments, and to some lesser extent in regards to different mouthpieces on the same horn).
-
ttf_MoominDave
- Posts: 0
- Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 11:59 am
Who in their right mind plays a Bach 1 1/2G ??
Quote from: CRWV on Dec 24, 2008, 12:25PMHey Dave, What do you want to be that the very same guy would make a wonderful sound, with all the power he could need, on a Bach50/R9 etc.,. and a Laskey 95D...
I believe he used to play on a 60. I just can't conceive that he wouldn't sound better on it still... It's bloody impressive that he gets around things at all on it, never mind the solo piece that he did do when I was there - but this kind of mouthpiece choice by those sitting in good seats is selling all of us short... And he obviously knew how to blow a bass trombone - that vast woofiness could be something really quite special if he only chose something a bit more sensible.
Quote from: Bob1062 on Dec 24, 2008, 12:29PMI think the comparison to a bazooka is MUCH more apt with Dave's example of a Wick 2. A 60, 1G,... they're big mouthpieces but they're not that big.
Nah, for my tastes, a 60 is still a bazooka. The player I just mentioned I might compare more to a cannon.
I believe he used to play on a 60. I just can't conceive that he wouldn't sound better on it still... It's bloody impressive that he gets around things at all on it, never mind the solo piece that he did do when I was there - but this kind of mouthpiece choice by those sitting in good seats is selling all of us short... And he obviously knew how to blow a bass trombone - that vast woofiness could be something really quite special if he only chose something a bit more sensible.
Quote from: Bob1062 on Dec 24, 2008, 12:29PMI think the comparison to a bazooka is MUCH more apt with Dave's example of a Wick 2. A 60, 1G,... they're big mouthpieces but they're not that big.
Nah, for my tastes, a 60 is still a bazooka. The player I just mentioned I might compare more to a cannon.
-
ttf_GetzenBassPlayer
- Posts: 0
- Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 11:58 am
Who in their right mind plays a Bach 1 1/2G ??
Great musicians play on equipment that helps them achieve their musical goals. Sometimes statements are made and then examples of poor musicianship are used to bring credibility to what was said. There are players sounding poorly on all sizes and brands of instruments, mouthpieces and whatever else can be thought of to change. Thankfully, the opposite is also true
-
ttf_savio
- Posts: 0
- Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 11:58 am
Who in their right mind plays a Bach 1 1/2G ??
The important thing many young players don't think on is control. No matter where you play you need control over the equipment. I think many players just think how far down do I get and how load can I play. Especially on the youtube players I see. If that was the point I would choose a canon no doubt. But the point with a bass trombone is to make music. To make music we need to control the equipment as much as possible. If you can play the Creation and the soft chorals in Brahms symphonies with a tuba mouthpiece I would like to see it. This can be done on a 60 piece of course if you take the time to practice many years and hours. But remember in a professional world, the high G in Haydn, its not enough to hit it. It need a clear attack, nice open sound and to be played exactly when you want it to be played in tune. Even in a amateur orchestra this would be nice to do. So control is a keyword. You have to make a compromiss when choosing because we cant get it all. And no matter what we play control is a keyword. And how to make control? Only practice. But choose equipment you know you have a fair chance to control with your practice time.
Leif
Leif
-
ttf_poozer
- Posts: 0
- Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 12:00 pm
Who in their right mind plays a Bach 1 1/2G ??
Quote from: savio on Dec 24, 2008, 02:06PMThe point with a bass trombone is to make music. To make music we need to control the equipment as much as possible. But choose equipment you know you have a fair chance to control with your practice time.
Leif, you often apologise for your English, but this is the clearest and most succinct summary of the equipment issue I've seen recently. Spot on
Leif, you often apologise for your English, but this is the clearest and most succinct summary of the equipment issue I've seen recently. Spot on
-
ttf_Daniel Harris
- Posts: 0
- Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 11:58 am
Who in their right mind plays a Bach 1 1/2G ??
Quote from: blast on Dec 24, 2008, 03:28AMDoes more efficient equipment make us more sterile as performers ? I very much hope not, as I have taken the route of choosing the equipment that allows me to most easily do the job I have to, in the way I want to.
Chris Stearn
Thanks, Chris. For me the critical part of what you are saying is the last part - "in the way I want to." If the result we expect of ouselves stays the same, then, of course, why not get it as efficiently as possible? If, however, we wind up willing to settle for less in some respect simply because it is more efficient, then I think there is at least the prospect of settling for "clinical excellence," where techical accuracy turns into getting by on the technicalities.
As Savio suggests, there is the question of how much of what we hear is heard by the audience, but if, as you say, audiences and critics are interested in subtlety, I am inclined to be cautious in assuming the audience doesn't hear something we would otherwise consider important.
Quote from: Birdy on Dec 24, 2008, 02:44AMTo me it depends on what endurance you're talking about though. On a smaller mouthpiece it's usually my chops that are first to go. On a big mouthpiece it's usually my upper stomach muscles that go first.
Birdy, I take your point. I was thinking about chops in my comments, based on the thought that, if the lips swell, they run out of room faster in a smaller mouthpiece. Based on my occasional forays into tuba or euphonium playing, however, I understand what you mean about the stomach muscles.
Dan Harris
Chris Stearn
Thanks, Chris. For me the critical part of what you are saying is the last part - "in the way I want to." If the result we expect of ouselves stays the same, then, of course, why not get it as efficiently as possible? If, however, we wind up willing to settle for less in some respect simply because it is more efficient, then I think there is at least the prospect of settling for "clinical excellence," where techical accuracy turns into getting by on the technicalities.
As Savio suggests, there is the question of how much of what we hear is heard by the audience, but if, as you say, audiences and critics are interested in subtlety, I am inclined to be cautious in assuming the audience doesn't hear something we would otherwise consider important.
Quote from: Birdy on Dec 24, 2008, 02:44AMTo me it depends on what endurance you're talking about though. On a smaller mouthpiece it's usually my chops that are first to go. On a big mouthpiece it's usually my upper stomach muscles that go first.
Birdy, I take your point. I was thinking about chops in my comments, based on the thought that, if the lips swell, they run out of room faster in a smaller mouthpiece. Based on my occasional forays into tuba or euphonium playing, however, I understand what you mean about the stomach muscles.
Dan Harris
-
ttf_blast
- Posts: 0
- Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 12:15 pm
Who in their right mind plays a Bach 1 1/2G ??
A question for you Dan..... suppose you found a mouthpiece that allowed you to get better results than ever in the low range, better results than ever in the high range, play a true orchestral ff with half the effort and generally feel more secure than anything you have previously used.... but you felt the sound to be slightly less good than your old setup, though none of your colleagues said they noticed....
Would you move to the new mouthpiece or stick with your old one ?????
Chris Stearn
Would you move to the new mouthpiece or stick with your old one ?????
Chris Stearn
-
ttf_savio
- Posts: 0
- Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 11:58 am
Who in their right mind plays a Bach 1 1/2G ??
While Dan have his nose in his Christmas gifts I give my answear Chris:
There are two answears and the obvious is to pick the one that gives you everything. But there are another way Chris. Pick the one we like the sound of. We can maybe work with it and get the high, low range and everything else with practice.
If our colleges cant hear the difference its still our self that have to live with it. If we don't like the sound, well where is the joy of playing it? But it is a difficult question and for people who live in a pro world the result is what counts. Audience don't wait until you can play it. They want result now.
Speaking about audience, I was at a concert many years ago and listen to a pro orchestra playing. I will not say what orchestra but it was not in Norway. The trombone group was playing so loud and I was thinking since it was holyday there maybe was not the "original group" but some students playing. They did ruin the hole concert but seems to be very proud.
I think the audience like power and the trombone is power in it self. But this was so unbalanced so it was far a way from making music. I believe it was a holyday substitute and the original group was maybe in a quiet beach with a beer. The rest of the orchestra was fine. I like to play loud and have of course done the same thing when I was younger. This concert did show me how important it is to play together and make a unit out of the music.
Leif
There are two answears and the obvious is to pick the one that gives you everything. But there are another way Chris. Pick the one we like the sound of. We can maybe work with it and get the high, low range and everything else with practice.
If our colleges cant hear the difference its still our self that have to live with it. If we don't like the sound, well where is the joy of playing it? But it is a difficult question and for people who live in a pro world the result is what counts. Audience don't wait until you can play it. They want result now.
Speaking about audience, I was at a concert many years ago and listen to a pro orchestra playing. I will not say what orchestra but it was not in Norway. The trombone group was playing so loud and I was thinking since it was holyday there maybe was not the "original group" but some students playing. They did ruin the hole concert but seems to be very proud.
I think the audience like power and the trombone is power in it self. But this was so unbalanced so it was far a way from making music. I believe it was a holyday substitute and the original group was maybe in a quiet beach with a beer. The rest of the orchestra was fine. I like to play loud and have of course done the same thing when I was younger. This concert did show me how important it is to play together and make a unit out of the music.
Leif
-
ttf_savio
- Posts: 0
- Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 11:58 am
Who in their right mind plays a Bach 1 1/2G ??
As I can see there are no real answear to the original question. Kleinhammer did play 1 1/2g and the bigger stuff.
The player in the right mind plays the mouthpiece where he/she don't think about mouthpiece but how to do music or the job.
Thats the simple answear Chris.
Leif
The player in the right mind plays the mouthpiece where he/she don't think about mouthpiece but how to do music or the job.
Thats the simple answear Chris.
Leif
-
ttf_Daniel Harris
- Posts: 0
- Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 11:58 am
Who in their right mind plays a Bach 1 1/2G ??
Quote from: blast on Dec 26, 2008, 12:43PMA question for you Dan..... suppose you found a mouthpiece that allowed you to get better results than ever in the low range, better results than ever in the high range, play a true orchestral ff with half the effort and generally feel more secure than anything you have previously used.... but you felt the sound to be slightly less good than your old setup, though none of your colleagues said they noticed....
Would you move to the new mouthpiece or stick with your old one ?????
Chris Stearn
Quote from: savio on Dec 27, 2008, 06:57AM
There are two answears and the obvious is to pick the one that gives you everything. But there are another way Chris. Pick the one we like the sound of. We can maybe work with it and get the high, low range and everything else with practice.
If our colleges cant hear the difference its still our self that have to live with it. If we don't like the sound, well where is the joy of playing it? But it is a difficult question and for people who live in a pro world the result is what counts. Audience don't wait until you can play it. They want result now.
Leif
Fair question, Chris, and as Savio says, a difficult one. Nevertheless, Savio, you have made it much easier for me to give an answer because yours expresses so much of what I think. Thank you.
When you put the question as a hypothetical like this, Chris, I suppose it is easy to say, Yes, switch to the new, more efficient mouthpiece. For me personally, however, the question has yet to present itself quite this way in real life. Perhaps it has for others. Perhaps it will for me someday.
I am currently doing a little bit of play testing of one of the new mouthpieces. It comes close to what your hypothetical describes in many ways, if not every way. Articulations seem to be more reliable and require less supervision, especially in the mid and low registers. So far, this mouthpiece seems quite comfortable. In those respects, I find it enjoyable to play. But I can't quite get past the sound. I think the sound is OK; it's not a bad sound, but I think it lacks a bit of core and I find myself wondering about how it projects. No doubt those aspects will improve if I spend more time with it, but I have a sense that there will be a limit to that improvement, which brings me back to Savio's points.
As you say, Savio, it is, above all, the person behind the mouthpiece who has to live with the sound produced. If one senses a limit too soon in what is possible with a particular set of equipment, I think a sense of futility could set in; again as you say, where is the joy?
You also raise the possibility of working enough with a mouthpiece whose sound we like to make the other facets happen. This has been my general sense with the Bach mouthpieces; as frustrating as they may be in some ways, there will always be a return on the time and effort spent with them - they present challenges rather than limits.
To bring all this more back on topic... Chris, I believe you expressed concern earlier in this thread that the skills to play a 1.5G in an orchestral setting were being lost. In the case of the Bach 1.5G specifically, I think this has to do with the rim contour as well as the size. I find that rim to be more ruthlessly unforgiving of any embouchure imperfection or irregularity than any other I have encountered. It also makes possible things that may well be impossible on other designs, which is why the concern you raise matters. But it is a lot of work.
Dan Harris
Would you move to the new mouthpiece or stick with your old one ?????
Chris Stearn
Quote from: savio on Dec 27, 2008, 06:57AM
There are two answears and the obvious is to pick the one that gives you everything. But there are another way Chris. Pick the one we like the sound of. We can maybe work with it and get the high, low range and everything else with practice.
If our colleges cant hear the difference its still our self that have to live with it. If we don't like the sound, well where is the joy of playing it? But it is a difficult question and for people who live in a pro world the result is what counts. Audience don't wait until you can play it. They want result now.
Leif
Fair question, Chris, and as Savio says, a difficult one. Nevertheless, Savio, you have made it much easier for me to give an answer because yours expresses so much of what I think. Thank you.
When you put the question as a hypothetical like this, Chris, I suppose it is easy to say, Yes, switch to the new, more efficient mouthpiece. For me personally, however, the question has yet to present itself quite this way in real life. Perhaps it has for others. Perhaps it will for me someday.
I am currently doing a little bit of play testing of one of the new mouthpieces. It comes close to what your hypothetical describes in many ways, if not every way. Articulations seem to be more reliable and require less supervision, especially in the mid and low registers. So far, this mouthpiece seems quite comfortable. In those respects, I find it enjoyable to play. But I can't quite get past the sound. I think the sound is OK; it's not a bad sound, but I think it lacks a bit of core and I find myself wondering about how it projects. No doubt those aspects will improve if I spend more time with it, but I have a sense that there will be a limit to that improvement, which brings me back to Savio's points.
As you say, Savio, it is, above all, the person behind the mouthpiece who has to live with the sound produced. If one senses a limit too soon in what is possible with a particular set of equipment, I think a sense of futility could set in; again as you say, where is the joy?
You also raise the possibility of working enough with a mouthpiece whose sound we like to make the other facets happen. This has been my general sense with the Bach mouthpieces; as frustrating as they may be in some ways, there will always be a return on the time and effort spent with them - they present challenges rather than limits.
To bring all this more back on topic... Chris, I believe you expressed concern earlier in this thread that the skills to play a 1.5G in an orchestral setting were being lost. In the case of the Bach 1.5G specifically, I think this has to do with the rim contour as well as the size. I find that rim to be more ruthlessly unforgiving of any embouchure imperfection or irregularity than any other I have encountered. It also makes possible things that may well be impossible on other designs, which is why the concern you raise matters. But it is a lot of work.
Dan Harris
-
ttf_sabutin
- Posts: 0
- Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 11:58 am
Who in their right mind plays a Bach 1 1/2G ??
Quote from: blast on Dec 26, 2008, 12:43PMA question for you Dan..... suppose you found a mouthpiece that allowed you to get better results than ever in the low range, better results than ever in the high range, play a true orchestral ff with half the effort and generally feel more secure than anything you have previously used.... but you felt the sound to be slightly less good than your old setup, though none of your colleagues said they noticed....
Would you move to the new mouthpiece or stick with your old one ?????
Chris Stearn
I know that you asked Dan,Chris but...what the hell, I'll chime in here too.
A mouthpiece that allowed me "to get better results than ever in the low range, better results than ever in the high range, play a true orchestral ff with half the effort and generally feel more secure" than anything I have previously used would almost certainly have a fine sound as well. Great balance almost always produces great sound. And if it didn't...if I felt a little diminished on it in any manner whatsoever... I would give it at least 3 weeks of hard use before I gave up.
In all of the m'pce changes...in fact in all of the equipment changes overall...that I have ever made,. this principle of better playing equals better sound has held true in about 99.5% of the cases. Overall better playing such as you describe, not simply a spike in one or two areas accompanied by diminished capabilities in several others.
in fact, I can only think of two instances where that was not the case...a Conn100H that I once owned that played absolutely impeccably (The partials were ridiculously in tune, but it sounded just like it had a straight mute in it.)...and a Mt. Vernon 6 1/2AL (I suspect that it had been altered) that actually sounded and played very well but so displaced the partials of the horn that it was almost impossible to play in tune.
Everything else...and I guess all told I am speaking of upwards of 50 fairly serious equipment changes over the past 25 years or so, counting the modular changes that are available with Shires horns and the fact that I play 5 sizes of trombone plus tuba fairly regularly...everything else has pretty much obeyed that law.
Better playing equals better sounding...provided of course that one is sensitive enough and developed enough on the horn to be able to tell what plays well and what doesn't out front.
Later...
S.
Would you move to the new mouthpiece or stick with your old one ?????
Chris Stearn
I know that you asked Dan,Chris but...what the hell, I'll chime in here too.
A mouthpiece that allowed me "to get better results than ever in the low range, better results than ever in the high range, play a true orchestral ff with half the effort and generally feel more secure" than anything I have previously used would almost certainly have a fine sound as well. Great balance almost always produces great sound. And if it didn't...if I felt a little diminished on it in any manner whatsoever... I would give it at least 3 weeks of hard use before I gave up.
In all of the m'pce changes...in fact in all of the equipment changes overall...that I have ever made,. this principle of better playing equals better sound has held true in about 99.5% of the cases. Overall better playing such as you describe, not simply a spike in one or two areas accompanied by diminished capabilities in several others.
in fact, I can only think of two instances where that was not the case...a Conn100H that I once owned that played absolutely impeccably (The partials were ridiculously in tune, but it sounded just like it had a straight mute in it.)...and a Mt. Vernon 6 1/2AL (I suspect that it had been altered) that actually sounded and played very well but so displaced the partials of the horn that it was almost impossible to play in tune.
Everything else...and I guess all told I am speaking of upwards of 50 fairly serious equipment changes over the past 25 years or so, counting the modular changes that are available with Shires horns and the fact that I play 5 sizes of trombone plus tuba fairly regularly...everything else has pretty much obeyed that law.
Better playing equals better sounding...provided of course that one is sensitive enough and developed enough on the horn to be able to tell what plays well and what doesn't out front.
Later...
S.
-
ttf_savio
- Posts: 0
- Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 11:58 am
Who in their right mind plays a Bach 1 1/2G ??
Sam, let me ask you a simple question. You are a top player. You play in a lot of different situations. And with a lot of different mouthpieces? And trombones? Do you think it get the best music result out of you?
If you just think music and played only one trombone and one mouthpiece? Will it give the best result?
Sam, if you forget the job and the money, what would you say?
What music would you play on your trombone?
Quote from: Daniel Harris on Dec 27, 2008, 11:21AM
You also raise the possibility of working enough with a mouthpiece whose sound we like to make the other facets happen. This has been my general sense with the Bach mouthpieces; as frustrating as they may be in some ways, there will always be a return on the time and effort spent with them - they present challenges rather than limits.
I will put it another way Dan: The Bach mouthpieces have the sound, the new mouthpieces has everything but not the sound.
This is maybe not the bible but.....
Cheers all of you......
If you just think music and played only one trombone and one mouthpiece? Will it give the best result?
Sam, if you forget the job and the money, what would you say?
What music would you play on your trombone?
Quote from: Daniel Harris on Dec 27, 2008, 11:21AM
You also raise the possibility of working enough with a mouthpiece whose sound we like to make the other facets happen. This has been my general sense with the Bach mouthpieces; as frustrating as they may be in some ways, there will always be a return on the time and effort spent with them - they present challenges rather than limits.
I will put it another way Dan: The Bach mouthpieces have the sound, the new mouthpieces has everything but not the sound.
This is maybe not the bible but.....
Cheers all of you......
-
ttf_sabutin
- Posts: 0
- Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 11:58 am
Who in their right mind plays a Bach 1 1/2G ??
Quote from: savio on Dec 27, 2008, 12:58PMSam, let me ask you a simple question. You are a top player. You play in a lot of different situations. And with a lot of different mouthpieces? And trombones? Do you think it get the best music result out of you?
Unfortunately, this is not a very simple question, savio.
Does doubling like this allow me to play inside of the idiomatic requirements of all of the idioms that I play?
Undoubtedly.
Does it have deleterious effects on my own playing in a physical...and thus a musical...sense.
Yes and no.
Short term? Yes. It took me a long while to get my physical act together while I was most actively doubling. I think that it would have been a shorter trip had I only been playing one piece of equipment, and even today it is a complicated, time-using process. It is also occasionally a failed complicated, time-using process, although not so often anymore.
But...the vast exposure to many idioms and sub-idioms has opened my ears to subtleties of playing that i do not believe I would have found if I had limited myself to one particular general approach.
For example...what I have learned rhythmically from playing with great latin musicians has done things to my perception of time that are literally indescribable in words.
For another...playing tuba and bass parts have opened me up harmonically in many ways. I hear from the bottom up in a really organic way now.
For a third...playing high, melodic lead has done things to my lyrical playing through ALL ranges.
For a fourth...w/out the bass trombone/tuba double I might never have been exposed to Lee Konitz's great nonet or played with Gil Evans, both of which experiences informed my musicianship on profound levels.
Etc.
So now no matter what I am playing...parts, lead, bass parts, solos whether improvised of not...what I am doing is substantially affected in a musical way by what I learned as a doubler.
QuoteIf you just think music and played only one trombone and one mouthpiece? Will it give the best result?
I am not even sure of that. I sometimes envy the ease and consistency of some non-doublers, but then again what I have learned by mastering (to some degree at least) almost all lower brass instruments undoubtedly helps me when i am trying to expand what i can do on my main horns.
QuoteSam, if you forget the job and the money, what would you say?
It's not about the money for me, savio.
It really isn't.
To a fault, sometimes.
And it's only about "the job" if the job interests me musically. Or in some instances, if it challenges me in terms of craft or physical necessities. Or of course, if I need the money to literally continue to survive and work at what I do.
QuoteWhat music would you play on your trombone?
The same music I am playing now, only if I had not become a doubler...somewhat differently, I suppose.
Later...
S.
P.S. If you are going to try to play multiple pieces of equipment at a fairly high level of musicianship, I will say this:
1-You'd better be ready to work at it, and work hard.
and
2-You'd do well to have the guts of a cat burglar, because there are going to be times when you don't really know what is going to come out of any given horn at any given moment and there you are jolly well going to be, aren't you?
Have fun...
I am.
Unfortunately, this is not a very simple question, savio.
Does doubling like this allow me to play inside of the idiomatic requirements of all of the idioms that I play?
Undoubtedly.
Does it have deleterious effects on my own playing in a physical...and thus a musical...sense.
Yes and no.
Short term? Yes. It took me a long while to get my physical act together while I was most actively doubling. I think that it would have been a shorter trip had I only been playing one piece of equipment, and even today it is a complicated, time-using process. It is also occasionally a failed complicated, time-using process, although not so often anymore.
But...the vast exposure to many idioms and sub-idioms has opened my ears to subtleties of playing that i do not believe I would have found if I had limited myself to one particular general approach.
For example...what I have learned rhythmically from playing with great latin musicians has done things to my perception of time that are literally indescribable in words.
For another...playing tuba and bass parts have opened me up harmonically in many ways. I hear from the bottom up in a really organic way now.
For a third...playing high, melodic lead has done things to my lyrical playing through ALL ranges.
For a fourth...w/out the bass trombone/tuba double I might never have been exposed to Lee Konitz's great nonet or played with Gil Evans, both of which experiences informed my musicianship on profound levels.
Etc.
So now no matter what I am playing...parts, lead, bass parts, solos whether improvised of not...what I am doing is substantially affected in a musical way by what I learned as a doubler.
QuoteIf you just think music and played only one trombone and one mouthpiece? Will it give the best result?
I am not even sure of that. I sometimes envy the ease and consistency of some non-doublers, but then again what I have learned by mastering (to some degree at least) almost all lower brass instruments undoubtedly helps me when i am trying to expand what i can do on my main horns.
QuoteSam, if you forget the job and the money, what would you say?
It's not about the money for me, savio.
It really isn't.
To a fault, sometimes.
And it's only about "the job" if the job interests me musically. Or in some instances, if it challenges me in terms of craft or physical necessities. Or of course, if I need the money to literally continue to survive and work at what I do.
QuoteWhat music would you play on your trombone?
The same music I am playing now, only if I had not become a doubler...somewhat differently, I suppose.
Later...
S.
P.S. If you are going to try to play multiple pieces of equipment at a fairly high level of musicianship, I will say this:
1-You'd better be ready to work at it, and work hard.
and
2-You'd do well to have the guts of a cat burglar, because there are going to be times when you don't really know what is going to come out of any given horn at any given moment and there you are jolly well going to be, aren't you?
Have fun...
I am.
-
ttf_savio
- Posts: 0
- Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 11:58 am
Who in their right mind plays a Bach 1 1/2G ??
Sam, can I ask you what is the most important thing for a young musician to do if he wants to make a living of playing the trombone? And is it a good advice to say yes if a young kid really wants to play the trombone?
Leif
Leif
-
ttf_blast
- Posts: 0
- Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 12:15 pm
Who in their right mind plays a Bach 1 1/2G ??
Thanks for the answers guys.... the funny thing is Dan, this is not a hypothetical... I was actually talking about the mouthpiece that I have been play testing for a couple of months...and probably the strangest equipment experience of my life to date.
The thing is SO different from anything else I have ever played.... and I feel it has been teaching me a lot of things since I have jumped into it's world.... as I have said, mouthpieces don't do things... they allow YOU to do things and this one has opened a whole load of new doors to me.... it also bites back when I try some of my old tricks... but if I go where it leads, I have a ball!!
I had a big period of doubt a few weeks ago, but I was stuck in a really demanding situation and things came good.
I'm still waiting for the downside.... there must be a downside.....
The sound is different.... different to what ? Different to Bach.... and I am getting around that in my head.... let's face it, it may even be better as a sound.... I'm having fun with the sound for sure... and it seems to work in a symphony orchestra..
AND nobody seems to think of it as different.... they did, but I seem to have found a way of getting ME to come out of the bell again.... at least I'm still in 1 1/2G size land, so it's not a sell out.... but it is strange.... I've played something so different and yet it seems to make sense.
Savio, if this looks like a sellout, it's not. I still love the sound of the finest old Bachs.... but I may have found a thing that moves the game on FOR ME.... still testing, so I ain't telling.
Dan, you are SO perceptive about the 1 1/2G.... that rim is a problem... but it's also a big part of the mouthpiece... and it took me a long time to get my wide-rim version to come good, sound wise.
Sam, insightful as ever... plays good and sounds good come as a set... yup... I just have to be open to more than one good !
Chris Stearn.
The thing is SO different from anything else I have ever played.... and I feel it has been teaching me a lot of things since I have jumped into it's world.... as I have said, mouthpieces don't do things... they allow YOU to do things and this one has opened a whole load of new doors to me.... it also bites back when I try some of my old tricks... but if I go where it leads, I have a ball!!
I had a big period of doubt a few weeks ago, but I was stuck in a really demanding situation and things came good.
I'm still waiting for the downside.... there must be a downside.....
The sound is different.... different to what ? Different to Bach.... and I am getting around that in my head.... let's face it, it may even be better as a sound.... I'm having fun with the sound for sure... and it seems to work in a symphony orchestra..
AND nobody seems to think of it as different.... they did, but I seem to have found a way of getting ME to come out of the bell again.... at least I'm still in 1 1/2G size land, so it's not a sell out.... but it is strange.... I've played something so different and yet it seems to make sense.
Savio, if this looks like a sellout, it's not. I still love the sound of the finest old Bachs.... but I may have found a thing that moves the game on FOR ME.... still testing, so I ain't telling.
Dan, you are SO perceptive about the 1 1/2G.... that rim is a problem... but it's also a big part of the mouthpiece... and it took me a long time to get my wide-rim version to come good, sound wise.
Sam, insightful as ever... plays good and sounds good come as a set... yup... I just have to be open to more than one good !
Chris Stearn.
-
ttf_savio
- Posts: 0
- Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 11:58 am
Who in their right mind plays a Bach 1 1/2G ??
Chris, maybe I have taken to much Christmas beer, but I don't believe you. Do you like that stainless ****?
Leif
Leif
-
ttf_sabutin
- Posts: 0
- Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 11:58 am
Who in their right mind plays a Bach 1 1/2G ??
Quote from: savio on Dec 27, 2008, 03:14PMSam, can I ask you what is the most important thing for a young musician to do if he wants to make a living of playing the trombone? And is it a good advice to say yes if a young kid really wants to play the trombone?
Leif
I can answer both questions simultaneously, Leif.
Always say yes.
Try everything; use what works.
I mean that.
After nearly 40 years as a musician here in NYC I still try to never turn down anything. Not the first time, anyway. If is is bad in some respect...bad music, bad feeling, funny money and/or disturbingly unpleasant in some way...I eventually decline to participate. But I try everything at least once.
Same thing about someone who really wants to play the horn. If (s)he shows any talent whatsoever, tell him/her to dive on in. I did...whole hog plus postage... and I have never regretted it.
Not once.
Later...
S.
Leif
I can answer both questions simultaneously, Leif.
Always say yes.
Try everything; use what works.
I mean that.
After nearly 40 years as a musician here in NYC I still try to never turn down anything. Not the first time, anyway. If is is bad in some respect...bad music, bad feeling, funny money and/or disturbingly unpleasant in some way...I eventually decline to participate. But I try everything at least once.
Same thing about someone who really wants to play the horn. If (s)he shows any talent whatsoever, tell him/her to dive on in. I did...whole hog plus postage... and I have never regretted it.
Not once.
Later...
S.
-
ttf_The Bone Ranger
- Posts: 0
- Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 11:59 am
Who in their right mind plays a Bach 1 1/2G ??
I read something along the lines of what Chris is talking about on Peter Ellefson's blog about equipment:
Quote from: Peter EllefsonThe best I ever sounded, in my opinion, was when I was playing a Greg Black Alessi 1.5. It is big, perhaps too big for me now. I can never blame how I sound on the mouthpiece.
This quote was in reference to his playing a custom Greg Black piece in the 4G/5G range. He doesn't go into details about why it's 'perhaps too big', but maybe he also has found another sound that pleases him, perhaps not quite as much, but is all together more workable. I don't really want to speculate any further on a simple blog entry, but draw your own conclusions.
Quote from: blast on Dec 27, 2008, 03:18PMSam, insightful as ever... plays good and sounds good come as a set... yup... I just have to be open to more than one good !
A different type of good. I like that. I've gone through something similar after spending most of this year playing a Greg Black 1.5G on my Edwards, and changing back to slightly larger pieces, due to what I believe was a mismatch between my setup and the mouthpiece somewhere. The sound on the larger piece was different, but far easier. Embracing that difference and seeing where it takes you is the key, sometimes. The sound has changed, but it's still me, and you can hear it's related to the sound I was producing on smaller equipment, with the emphasis on a different flavour in the tone.
You've got to hear the love in the sound. With players who are true 'craftsmen' in the practice room, you can hear a real love for the sound they're producing, one they've honed and shaped, and developed a passion for. If they love it, you 'll probably feel it, too.
Andrew
PS The Greg Black 1.5G/Edwards bass mismatch I thought was a big horn/small mouthpiece thing may have just been a leadpipe issue. The #2 leadpipe I was using was significantly out of round, so I had my repair guy set up a Shires #2 for my horn, and it's an incredible difference over all of my Edwards pipes. I'm a little reluctant to try the 1.5G again, as I'm having so much fun on my Hammond 20BL (which, I believe, made it easier to 'muscle' around the squirrelly middle register the dodgy Edwards leadpipe was producing) that I'm reluctant to change, but maybe I'll give it a weekend soon and see if the love returns...
Quote from: Peter EllefsonThe best I ever sounded, in my opinion, was when I was playing a Greg Black Alessi 1.5. It is big, perhaps too big for me now. I can never blame how I sound on the mouthpiece.
This quote was in reference to his playing a custom Greg Black piece in the 4G/5G range. He doesn't go into details about why it's 'perhaps too big', but maybe he also has found another sound that pleases him, perhaps not quite as much, but is all together more workable. I don't really want to speculate any further on a simple blog entry, but draw your own conclusions.
Quote from: blast on Dec 27, 2008, 03:18PMSam, insightful as ever... plays good and sounds good come as a set... yup... I just have to be open to more than one good !
A different type of good. I like that. I've gone through something similar after spending most of this year playing a Greg Black 1.5G on my Edwards, and changing back to slightly larger pieces, due to what I believe was a mismatch between my setup and the mouthpiece somewhere. The sound on the larger piece was different, but far easier. Embracing that difference and seeing where it takes you is the key, sometimes. The sound has changed, but it's still me, and you can hear it's related to the sound I was producing on smaller equipment, with the emphasis on a different flavour in the tone.
You've got to hear the love in the sound. With players who are true 'craftsmen' in the practice room, you can hear a real love for the sound they're producing, one they've honed and shaped, and developed a passion for. If they love it, you 'll probably feel it, too.
Andrew
PS The Greg Black 1.5G/Edwards bass mismatch I thought was a big horn/small mouthpiece thing may have just been a leadpipe issue. The #2 leadpipe I was using was significantly out of round, so I had my repair guy set up a Shires #2 for my horn, and it's an incredible difference over all of my Edwards pipes. I'm a little reluctant to try the 1.5G again, as I'm having so much fun on my Hammond 20BL (which, I believe, made it easier to 'muscle' around the squirrelly middle register the dodgy Edwards leadpipe was producing) that I'm reluctant to change, but maybe I'll give it a weekend soon and see if the love returns...
-
ttf_savio
- Posts: 0
- Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 11:58 am
Who in their right mind plays a Bach 1 1/2G ??
You are right Sam. Say yes as long you can. I had a tuba girl who are now a professionals. I could never say no because she wanted to learn all the way.
And the funny thing she still came back after many years.
I still cant play a tuba like she.
Leif
And the funny thing she still came back after many years.
I still cant play a tuba like she.
Leif
-
ttf_blast
- Posts: 0
- Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 12:15 pm
Who in their right mind plays a Bach 1 1/2G ??
Quote from: savio on Dec 27, 2008, 03:30PMChris, maybe I have taken to much Christmas beer, but I don't believe you. Do you like that stainless ****?
Leif
It's odd Savio... I really thought the mouthpiece was a non-starter when I first blew it... but it demands a different balance of blowing, and when you get it, good things happen. I became curios about it when I let a player try it who was with me for a consultation... the guy sounded amazing on it... so thought that it must be possible to get it to work and decided to work at it for a few days to see.... and so far I'm still there.
Chris Stearn
Leif
It's odd Savio... I really thought the mouthpiece was a non-starter when I first blew it... but it demands a different balance of blowing, and when you get it, good things happen. I became curios about it when I let a player try it who was with me for a consultation... the guy sounded amazing on it... so thought that it must be possible to get it to work and decided to work at it for a few days to see.... and so far I'm still there.
Chris Stearn
-
ttf_GetzenBassPlayer
- Posts: 0
- Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 11:58 am
Who in their right mind plays a Bach 1 1/2G ??
Quote from: blast on Dec 28, 2008, 02:07AM
It's odd Savio... I really thought the mouthpiece was a non-starter when I first blew it... but it demands a different balance of blowing, and when you get it, good things happen. I became curios about it when I let a player try it who was with me for a consultation... the guy sounded amazing on it... so thought that it must be possible to get it to work and decided to work at it for a few days to see.... and so far I'm still there.
Chris Stearn
I have been playing on stainless steel for a while now, but there seems something about the design of the G@W pieces that seem to give a good balance of the aspects of playing that a mouthpiece controls. I was like Blast, the first time I played the pieces, I did not care for them, but I bought one anyway because I had a trial period and my trombone instructor really liked his. When I went to my lesson, I played several measures and then stopped. Doug told me that he really liked my sound on the piece compared to my Houser. I still wasn't sold. I felt like I could not project on the piece, until I was practicing at school. One of the schools that I teach at is a 700 student semi open concept elementary school. My band room is just to the right of the main doors. I was in the room practicing with the door slightly ajar and had several staff members come in and comment on how good I sound. The general music teacher, who is also a trombonist, came in and commented on how he really liked the sound and told me he could hear me at the back of the school. That was about 6 weeks ago. Just before Christmas I subbed the bass trombone chair in a big band performance for a friend who double booked himself. One of the pieces was Winter Wonderland which was written so that the ensemble played the first part of the melody and I played, "walking in a winter wonderland" as a solo. I was playing a comfortable sounding FF with this piece, no drama or strain in the sound. The guys in the band at the break commented on how nicely the section turned out. I am beginning acclimate to the piece and have done hours of recording myself and I am liking my sound on this piece too. For a large piece, it plays very efficient.
It's odd Savio... I really thought the mouthpiece was a non-starter when I first blew it... but it demands a different balance of blowing, and when you get it, good things happen. I became curios about it when I let a player try it who was with me for a consultation... the guy sounded amazing on it... so thought that it must be possible to get it to work and decided to work at it for a few days to see.... and so far I'm still there.
Chris Stearn
I have been playing on stainless steel for a while now, but there seems something about the design of the G@W pieces that seem to give a good balance of the aspects of playing that a mouthpiece controls. I was like Blast, the first time I played the pieces, I did not care for them, but I bought one anyway because I had a trial period and my trombone instructor really liked his. When I went to my lesson, I played several measures and then stopped. Doug told me that he really liked my sound on the piece compared to my Houser. I still wasn't sold. I felt like I could not project on the piece, until I was practicing at school. One of the schools that I teach at is a 700 student semi open concept elementary school. My band room is just to the right of the main doors. I was in the room practicing with the door slightly ajar and had several staff members come in and comment on how good I sound. The general music teacher, who is also a trombonist, came in and commented on how he really liked the sound and told me he could hear me at the back of the school. That was about 6 weeks ago. Just before Christmas I subbed the bass trombone chair in a big band performance for a friend who double booked himself. One of the pieces was Winter Wonderland which was written so that the ensemble played the first part of the melody and I played, "walking in a winter wonderland" as a solo. I was playing a comfortable sounding FF with this piece, no drama or strain in the sound. The guys in the band at the break commented on how nicely the section turned out. I am beginning acclimate to the piece and have done hours of recording myself and I am liking my sound on this piece too. For a large piece, it plays very efficient.
-
ttf_Slidennis
- Posts: 0
- Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 12:00 pm
Who in their right mind plays a Bach 1 1/2G ??
Which G&W and Houser model are we talking exactly?? I'm eager to know the specifics, and lazy to read lots of former pages if the answer is already there...
-
ttf_blast
- Posts: 0
- Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 12:15 pm
Who in their right mind plays a Bach 1 1/2G ??
Whilst I am testing equipment, I am not prepared to recommend it on the basis of an incomplete picture... so I am not trumpeting the details at this time, though there are not too many G&W models in the 1 1/2G size range.
The last thing I would want is for people to go and buy a mouthpiece on the back of hype generated here. I have been discussing this mouthpiece with some friends in New York and at least one of them has tried and rejected it. It may be that I may try some small modifications too.... it's early days with what may well be a great design.... whereas the Bach 1 1/2G has been around for long enough and been played by enough great players, to be a known quantity.... even if it is primarily known for being too variable in production, it's one of the all time classics.....
We may be saying that about Ivan's designs in 50 years, who knows ? I won't be around to offer an opinion, that's for sure... but for now, I tread with caution, an open mind and an even more open ear.
Chris Stearn
The last thing I would want is for people to go and buy a mouthpiece on the back of hype generated here. I have been discussing this mouthpiece with some friends in New York and at least one of them has tried and rejected it. It may be that I may try some small modifications too.... it's early days with what may well be a great design.... whereas the Bach 1 1/2G has been around for long enough and been played by enough great players, to be a known quantity.... even if it is primarily known for being too variable in production, it's one of the all time classics.....
We may be saying that about Ivan's designs in 50 years, who knows ? I won't be around to offer an opinion, that's for sure... but for now, I tread with caution, an open mind and an even more open ear.
Chris Stearn
-
ttf_Birdy
- Posts: 0
- Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 11:58 am
Who in their right mind plays a Bach 1 1/2G ??
Maybe this thread should be re-named 'Who in their right mind plays a Wick 2AL?'.
I've just sold a 1.5G and a 2AL on Ebay, both in good nick, both sold at the same time with the same postage costs etc.
The 2AL made more than the 1.5G by about 30%.
That I wasn't expecting........
I've just sold a 1.5G and a 2AL on Ebay, both in good nick, both sold at the same time with the same postage costs etc.
The 2AL made more than the 1.5G by about 30%.
That I wasn't expecting........
-
ttf_savio
- Posts: 0
- Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 11:58 am
Who in their right mind plays a Bach 1 1/2G ??
Birdy, a DW mouthpiece is more expensive than a Bach so thats maybe normal?
Chris and you other players that try the stainless, I have a question.
Is it the steel that makes this design special or is it the rim, cup etc.?
What does the steel do with the playing feel and with the sound?
Can be difficult to answear after only some weeks but.
I'm not going to try anymore mouthpieces, just curious?
Leif
Chris and you other players that try the stainless, I have a question.
Is it the steel that makes this design special or is it the rim, cup etc.?
What does the steel do with the playing feel and with the sound?
Can be difficult to answear after only some weeks but.
I'm not going to try anymore mouthpieces, just curious?
Leif
-
ttf_blast
- Posts: 0
- Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 12:15 pm
Who in their right mind plays a Bach 1 1/2G ??
Good question Savio.... and a hard one to answer.
I think steel has qualities that alter the sound, but how is hard to answer... I would need to try the same design in different metals to isolate that. The design is the biggest factor, as I have tried SS mouthpieces that I really didn't like at all.
Sorry that I cannot offer more at this time.
Chris Stearn
I think steel has qualities that alter the sound, but how is hard to answer... I would need to try the same design in different metals to isolate that. The design is the biggest factor, as I have tried SS mouthpieces that I really didn't like at all.
Sorry that I cannot offer more at this time.
Chris Stearn
-
ttf_Birdy
- Posts: 0
- Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 11:58 am
Who in their right mind plays a Bach 1 1/2G ??
Quote from: savio on Jan 04, 2009, 01:38AMBirdy, a DW mouthpiece is more expensive than a Bach so thats maybe normal?
Maybe in Norway Leif, in Britain the 2AL retails at about £36, the 1.5G at about £60.
http://www.bandsupplies.co.uk/StockItems.asp?SubCategory=99
Maybe in Norway Leif, in Britain the 2AL retails at about £36, the 1.5G at about £60.
http://www.bandsupplies.co.uk/StockItems.asp?SubCategory=99