Theory---Largest..or Smallest?

ttf_evan51 · Post by **ttf_evan51** » Wed Jul 12, 2006 3:56 pm

Kevin Marsh writes of Alain Trudel:

QuoteLots of modern trombonists , both bass and tenor, play equipment that is AS LARGE as they can get away with. Then they have to practice excessively , to build the necessary muscle mass and physical strength to be able to produce the pitches they require to do their playing. And also to produce the necessary air capacity and air speed to control a mouthpiece TOO LARGE for their needs.
They are practicing too much just to get to the point where they are able to produce music ONLY after they are able to control the brass.

Trudel's theory is totally different---

He plays AS SMALL a mouthpiece as he can because he wants to play MUSIC from the first time he picks up the horn. He is unconcerned with building muscle or muscle mass or excessive strength to control the horn. He plays as openly as possible and with as little pressure as possible.

He inhales- he exhales. Sometimes a trombone gets in the way....at that point he is playing a trombone, otherwise he breathes the same all the time, effortlessly.

This is a very interesting quote and lays out two opposing and common views about selecting a mouthpiece. Where do y'all stand on this? What have your teachers recommended? What have you actually done in approaching this issue (when their backs were turned

?).

ttf_anonymous · Post by **ttf_anonymous** » Wed Jul 12, 2006 4:01 pm

I just play what's most comfortable and achieves what I wish to achieve from the mouthpiece.

My teacher didn't really say anything about my mouthpiece and choosing one. I had my concussion/contusion earlier in the year when I wanted to switch mouthpieces, the ETW was the first time I'd played in a couple weeks as well as where I got my new mouthpiece. The only comment that I got from him was when I got back to school and my playing sucked, he took my mouthpiece, washed it, played it, washed it, and handed it back to me saying, "Well, it's not the mouthpeice. Thats a very good mouthpiece. It's you."

That's all I ever really got from him before, during, or after.

ttf_anonymous · Post by **ttf_anonymous** » Wed Jul 12, 2006 4:56 pm

I'm certainly no Alain Trudel. If I was I would probably not be spending so much time on forum. But Frank B. is right. I kind of evolved to large mouthpieces, which I attribute to having an overly large mouth. I think it's a mistake to totally discount anatomy when searching for the 'right' equipment.

ttf_anonymous · Post by **ttf_anonymous** » Wed Jul 12, 2006 8:00 pm

I guess that I started this ugly can 'o worms. I'll short circuit the thread and reduce the number of posts right now by 80%.

Go through the OTJ.
Read it ALL.
Memorize it all.
Get as much professional experience experience as you can so you can detect the red herrings in the threads and get to the truth.

Here it goes, folks:

Why do some principal players in huge orchestras play large mouthpieces?
1. Because they can
2. Because the acoustical tiles on the ceiling destroyed the acoustics and they have to to get a round full sound in competetition with 100 strings and 12 percussionists.Or, the new paint job destroyed the acoustics and they're in trouble with a new conductor.
3. Because they spend 95% of the time counting rests, and they can.

Why do some bass trombonists in large orchestras do the same? See points 1,2 and 3 above.

Heres a fun thing to search for on the OTJ......Van Haney had a nice perfect mouthpiece made for him in '45 and it was copied many many times. It became a cult item in Eastman and copies of it are still floating around...Giardinelli Symphony-T. Remington mouthpiece. Guys ( famous famous players ) played their copies and one day found out at an audition that althought they all bought the same mouthpiece some were 4G size and some were 6 1/2AL size. Poor copy control.

Numbers don't tell even half the story.

Does body shape or oral cavity shape determine your mouthpiece? Personally I have a large oral cavity, within human range...but about one inch longer than normal so I'm flat on most horns. So, do I play a larger mouthpiece? Absolutely not. SMALLER.

I just finished a gig for 2 1/2 hours. Played outdoors in renaissance garb with a brass quartet into the sun drinking wobbly-pops for a crowd of feasting agricultural company reps and their wives. Conn bass bone with large tenor mouthpiece. Did anyone complain? You bet...they complained whenever we stopped playing and they had to knock off the tambourine playing and dancing. Tenor player played a small Rath M.N. S11. Could we have gone on and done another 3 hours . YES.

Did anyone say our sound was "small". Nope.

At one point in my life I used to play 3 -set big band jobs with a Schilke 60. At the end of a night I could taste blood. Next day I was wasted. Stupid? Yes.

I used to play three parades a day in a military band with a Schilke 60. Could I taste blood when I went to bed after I polished my boots? You bet! Stupid? Absolutely.

My last point--- here is my prediction--- the OTJ will have at least 500 kids in Grade 9 discover the horn next school year. And I predict 80% of the kids on the OTJ will be asking the same question.....how "big" should I play? And will Schilke be introducing a Schilke 61 with a shallower cup for me to try?

Now, everybody go re-read the thread that Blast started about the 1 1/2G on the top of this page, and why does it still work....if you let it and are prepared to make the effort to.[/u]

ttf_Sea Dog · Post by **ttf_Sea Dog** » Wed Jul 12, 2006 8:06 pm

Trudel is an amazing player, but he is a soloist and can be more individual in his sound. Working as basically an ensemble player requires one to be more conscious of blend with other trombones as well as other instruments. As someone who does play on larger equipment, I do not agree that I have to spend a lot of time building up muscle or that I have to control the brass before I make music. I feel that I always try to make music, I don't like to think that I'm simply "playing the brass". There certainly are trombonists who play on equipment that is too big for them, but that is not the fault of those who do play big equipment for valid reasons.

I like to test myself every so often too, I have been working on this solo that is very high and has almost no rest for about 12 minutes. I've been working on this on my large horn and mouthpiece. After a while I try it on my small bore horn with small mouthpieces of various sizes to see if it makes it any easier. I give each set up a fair shake, and as hard as it is to believe, it's easier for me on my big horn. Now if more people tried this test, they may find that they are more happy on the smaller mouthpieces. I do try this with bigger mouthpieces once in a while too and I'm not going any bigger.

I don't make a big deal about the size of my mouthpiece to students for this reason, as students are impressionable, I don't want to make them think that they need to play on a big mouthpiece to make it. There is also some machismo involved in this whole big mouthpiece thing, like it proves that one is a bigger man for doing it. That certainly is NOT the case. Trudel is a great player for a lot of reasons, but the size of his mouthpiece is not part of the equation. Joe Alessi may play on a huge mouthpiece, but he changes mouthpieces often and will sound like him no matter what size cup he's on.

Listen, learn, practice. Play a horn that is in good working order and on a mouthpiece that is appropriate for your facial structure and concept of playing. And by all means, always make music!

ttf_Sea Dog · Post by **ttf_Sea Dog** » Wed Jul 12, 2006 8:15 pm

It took me so long to write the previous post that Kevin snuck one in that I feel I should respond to.

I certainly respect Kevin's opinion and if he's happy playing what he's on, great! It does sound like he spent some time figuring out what was a good fit for him, which is something we all go through.

However, I don't agree with his comments about orchestral players necessarily and they certainly don't apply to me as a band player. The horn is on my face for 2 1/2 hours of rehearsals a day, plus my personal practice time and I've been playing a 2 hour musical 7 shows a week. The size of my mouthpiece is certainly not standing in my way.

I do agree with Kevin that when it comes to younger players, the size of the mouthpiece becomes too much of an issue too young.

ttf_anonymous · Post by **ttf_anonymous** » Thu Jul 13, 2006 5:29 am

Quite true, sir. An excellent point. And perhaps one that Sam Burtis has been writing about for many years on this and other forums ( fora?).

Orchestral trombone playing is a hold over from 19th century european "art " music, and as such is almost a historical curiosity. I admit that new music is being composed daily, performed daily and appreciated daily. But the overall "structure" of the symphony orchestra is set in stone.

Need an example? To auditon for a gig there you play excerpts of tunes 150 years old and are judged by how well you can RE-create the past. If you can RE-create the past with 100% accuracy 100% of the time, chances are you'll get the gig, and happily plan your retirement after another 40 years of RE-creating the 19th century.

Band playing? A totally different animal. Totally different gear, different mind set. Different goals. All just as worthy as the orchestral experience.

My personal concern, as someone approaching the end of my playing days in a scant 30 or 40 years from now, is how to make the horn appeal to a huge crop of kids RIGHT NOW! I'd like to see 12 trombonists in every band, three or four on a part, and the really exceptional ones heading over to the euphs and tubas to learn how to double and be really versatile.( Just to drive the "fulltime" euphs and tubists insane when the good trombonists can eclipse them in two hours when they discover that 7-positions equal 7 valve combinations.)

Will the ordinary human being, who will hopefully evolve as a player into someone with a love of music above all, and settle down into a weekend warrior pattern of gigging and rehearsing for their full lifetime, be able to do this on the LARGEST equipment possible?

I think not. Finish school, whatever level you get to. And then settle down into a lifelong pattern of practicing, rehearsing with community groups and loving it because it doesn't hurt. To do this, you select the SMALLEST gear possible to do the job.

I'll repeat a thread I contributed to previously on the OTJ. Do trumpet players get caught up in the arms war and select huge mouthpieces? NEVER. They love to talk about mouthpieces above all things else on earth, but to a man they're not interested in getting Schilke to produce a model #25, 26, 27 etc. etc. to get an advantage over the next player.

I predicted in my first post here that I'd short circuit about 80% of the posts to this thread. I'll kill off another 10% right now. Of the players who are happy playing their current mouthpiece, and have EVER ( I mean EVER , even once, questioned their choice of gear in their mind) or have had a section mate express surprise at their choice of large mouthpiece-- have they ever had another thought that after a layoff of a period of time had mis-givings about the length of time it'll take to get back "into shape".

I'm talking about taking two days off of the horn, and then thinking in their heart " Aaaaaaaarrggggghhhh, gotta practice .Now! Or it'll really be a drag tomorrow, on day 3".

And if you're one of the 80% of the guys who play large equipment and the answer to the above question is " Nah! I NEVER take a day off." then I commend you for your diligence. But eventually you'll have a family, or ***GASP*** a day job and won't have the strength to play 8 hours a day-- or the time. And then playing a nice SMALL mouthpiece may be fun again.
Just small enough to do the playing you want/have to and still be able to take breaks from the horn to take care of daily business without having to worry about the gear.

ttf_anonymous · Post by **ttf_anonymous** » Fri Jul 14, 2006 3:21 am

One of my teachers said "It's too big, too tubby. Try this..."

One said, "They both sound OK."

Another said,"It's too big for me."

A different one said,"That's a bit small for me..."

They all talked about and DEMONSTRATED a good, fundamental sound in all registers. They all spent more time on making music than on equipment. Having taken lessons with a number of guys, and having had the chance to play in ensembles with talented folks of both genders, the usual order of things is to find out what is being used and then get to the important stuff: music.

I know that if I'm talking about equipment with a student that the next thing we'll talk about is air. Air, air, air...then on to music and the fundamentals there-of.

ttf_MonsterAar · Post by **ttf_MonsterAar** » Fri Jul 14, 2006 4:37 am

Quote from: "Kevin Marsh"I predicted in my first post here that I'd short circuit about 80% of the posts to this thread. I'll kill off another 10% right now. Of the players who are happy playing their current mouthpiece, and have EVER ( I mean EVER , even once, questioned their choice of gear in their mind) or have had a section mate express surprise at their choice of large mouthpiece-- have they ever had another thought that after a layoff of a period of time had mis-givings about the length of time it'll take to get back "into shape".

I'm talking about taking two days off of the horn, and then thinking in their heart " Aaaaaaaarrggggghhhh, gotta practice .Now! Or it'll really be a drag tomorrow, on day 3".

And if you're one of the 80% of the guys who play large equipment and the answer to the above question is " Nah! I NEVER take a day off." then I commend you for your diligence. But eventually you'll have a family, or ***GASP*** a day job and won't have the strength to play 8 hours a day-- or the time. And then playing a nice SMALL mouthpiece may be fun again.
Just small enough to do the playing you want/have to and still be able to take breaks from the horn to take care of daily business without having to worry about the gear.

No, I've never had mis-givings over time taken to get into shape after a lay-off the horn. I've had periods of 2 months where I havn't played the horn and it never feels bad first day back, 2nd or third or ever. It feels perferct for my face, just as it does when i've been practising solidly for months.

Some people NEED large rims. Small rims don't work. I hope Doug Elliott will chime in here to talk about that.

ttf_anonymous · Post by **ttf_anonymous** » Fri Jul 14, 2006 5:14 am

Ah, ha!!!

Two more thoughful intelligent posts to this thread. Thank you, gentlemen.

Now, using the Socratic method of asking probing questions and getting answers in an attempt to DEFINE OUR TERMS, we get closer to the truth.

The thread title is "largest" or "smallest".

We can now further define the thread title as "TOO large" or "TOO small".

Thank you, good sirs, we've just eliminated another 5% of the potential readership. And so we're down to 5% of the OTJ readership. I consider this a great victory, because even 5% of 5000 members will be ....uhhhhhhh..... about 12 players.(??)

I read with appreciation every post of Doug Elliott's. He gets to the heart of a matter and can diagnose a problem like no other. His multitudinous testimonials from legion of professional trombonists here on the forum illustrates two points---

1. He REALLY knows his stuff, and REALLY cares about people, ( not business and the almighty buck) and --
2. The vast majority of trombone mouthpiece manufacturing done in the 20th century was by companies run by trumpet players ( Bach, etc. etc. ) who needed a line of mouthpieces to flog with their horns and throw into the case as a freebie with every horn sold.

21st century?? Rath, Laskey and Elliott and all the other makers who did thousands of hours of play testing. Unlike Bach who took a reamer to a trombone blank and gradually every .5mm added another mouthpiece to the line of products.

Now, unless I'm mistaken, the majority of posts regarding Elliott products I read are all about fine tweeking of smallish gear to make it more efficient for individual players to suit their musical needs and the demands of their gigs. If they want TOO large mouthpieces then those are already available a plenty from the mass produced manufacturers.

Case in point? A kid finding a 5G too bright is likely to go to a 4G or a 3G ( " cuz dats whut Jay Friedman plays on!!!). Someone else may go to Doug Elliott and tell him he finds a 5G too bright with his 88H, and Doug will listen and suggest a different underpart or backbore?

ttf_Slidennis · Post by **ttf_Slidennis** » Fri Jul 14, 2006 5:24 am

I was very happy with my Stomvi 7B on my king 4B, very nice sound when played at my home, where FF means mF in my wind band...

So if I want to hear myself and be heard at my windband (more than 50 windplayers...) I always have to play louder than home, in another kind of place (big old barn...) and the sound of the 4B began to be really nasty...

So now, when I play there I'm more than happy on a Faxx 5G, which is considered HERE to be really big!!!
I dislike playing this piece when I'm home, but I have to, in order to train for the windband...

I love to play the trombone softly, I'll have to find a band where I can do so!!

ttf_MonsterAar · Post by **ttf_MonsterAar** » Fri Jul 14, 2006 6:21 am

Quote from: "Kevin Marsh"
Now, unless I'm mistaken, the majority of posts regarding Elliott products I read are all about fine tweeking of smallish gear to make it more efficient for individual players to suit their musical needs and the demands of their gigs. If they want TOO large mouthpieces then those are already available a plenty from the mass produced manufacturers.

Case in point? A kid finding a 5G too bright is likely to go to a 4G or a 3G ( " cuz dats whut Jay Friedman plays on!!!). Someone else may go to Doug Elliott and tell him he finds a 5G too bright with his 88H, and Doug will listen and suggest a different underpart or backbore?

What Mr. Elliott does is tries to find a rim that matches you, then recomends cups/shanks depending on what sound you are looking for/problems that may arise.

For me, he asked for photos of my chops while playing, and asked me to do some tests with a tuner. I was asked to tune up in my normal playing position and then place/slide the mouthpiece to different places. From this He was able to determine two things:

I need large rims
I needed to move my mouthpiece placement higher.

At this time I was playing on a 4G. He recomended his equivalent rim (which i believe is slightly larger).

I use this same rim for all my horns and it works wonders - I have never once felt it to be too big - OR too small. Just perfect.

so, fif someone goes to doug elliott and tells him that he finds a 5G too bright, Doug will listen, ask questions, and may or may not sugest a different rim size. AFter this, then the subject of cups will come up (with large tenors his 8 shank is the only one he provides now as it is hte absolute best he has come up with so far for large tenor). Doug may also find that the bright sound is not an equipment problem, but that falls outside the subject of this thread.

I think i remember him saying once that if you CAN play WELL on a large rim, you most probably NEED a large rim.

Keep in mind that not everyone agrees with Doug's views.

So to get back on topic, some people may find it harder to get back into shape with a smaller rim. I know it would take me month to try and play will on a 12C - not days. It all depends on the person.

I don't think either of the 'as big as possible'/'as small as possible' camps are correct. I believe the correct answer is 'what works for you best' which may be big, which may be small, which maybe in between. (I believe Doug once mentioned that the 5 sized rim was the middle size - may be wrong).

This is, of course, my opinion. Some people will tell you you should use a mouthpiece that works for each horn, which may meen a 12C for small tenor and 4G for large. These people make it work for them.

Not one thing works for everybody.

Find what works for you and don't listen to anyone else. If you don't agree with me, don't bother remembering anythgin I've jsut said because it may harm the way you play your horn if you start wondering 'what if...'

Luke
(A Large rim player)

ttf_anonymous · Post by **ttf_anonymous** » Fri Jul 14, 2006 6:38 am

Quote from: "Kevin Marsh"The thread title is "largest" or "smallest".

We can now further define the thread title as "TOO large" or "TOO small".

I really do not understand what you are attempting to say here.

TOO large or TOO small, how about a mouthpiece that fits, first off, and second has the desired charastics that a mouthpiece is possible of providing?

It's as non-sensical to go deer hunting with a pellet gun as it is to go with a shoulder mounted gernade launcher.

In the spectrum of small and large there are trade-offs either way you swing it. Some may be desired, some not be. In the larger sizes it is possible to get much more body with the trade off that much more body is much harder to throw around. On the reverse, it maybe easier to throw around the body, but that is because there isn't as much.

To me, these sound like stylistic and performance concerns that have great potential to varry depending on the player and what they want to accomplish. So why then would a knowledgable and well abled trombonist wish to make a blanket claim for everyone that we should tend to only one side of the spectrum?

If we are discussing the ability and growth of students, then when working from a semi-blind position, why not simply attempt to develop them and their abilities to a point where they can function very well on an average, middle sized mouthpiece from which they can choose sizes as they fit both the player and stylistic considerations and abilities?

If this posturing is mostly to balance out the "bigger is better" type theories, there is little need. Often proponents of that theory negate their verbal claims with the physical result of the theory put in motion.

ttf_brucejackson · Post by **ttf_brucejackson** » Fri Jul 14, 2006 8:04 am

Quote from: "Kevin Marsh"I'm talking about taking two days off of the horn, and then thinking in their heart " Aaaaaaaarrggggghhhh, gotta practice .Now! Or it'll really be a drag tomorrow, on day 3".

And if you're one of the 80% of the guys who play large equipment and the answer to the above question is " Nah! I NEVER take a day off." then I commend you for your diligence. But eventually you'll have a family, or ***GASP*** a day job and won't have the strength to play 8 hours a day-- or the time. And then playing a nice SMALL mouthpiece may be fun again.
Just small enough to do the playing you want/have to and still be able to take breaks from the horn to take care of daily business without having to worry about the gear.

I'm in that boat. When I was a music major in college I got caught up in the "arms race" of larger trombone mouthpieces. It seemed like we could never sound dark or loud enough so we kept going to larger mouthpieces.

Now finding time to practice is a stuggle so I am trying smaller mouthpieces to find the easiest one to get a good sound with. I no longer have 3-4 hours to spend practicing every day.

ttf_Stan · Post by **ttf_Stan** » Fri Jul 14, 2006 8:11 am

I just had a wonderful thought... It's like shoes. Mouthpieces are ultimately just like shoes. You've got your mass produced Walmart shoe, your slightly higher quality shoe available only at shoe stores and your custom, high end boutique shoe.

Now, and here's the time to laugh at Stan, I'm not a really big guy. I'm 5'3, and I wear a size 6.5W. Apparently, the strangest shoe size ever. Now, I can fit my foot into a 6.5 or a 7, but it's that 6.5W that really is the sweet spot.

Of course, I could wear a size 9..I could probably even squeeze into a size 5. But, I shop around endlessly until I can find something that feels good, and that's generally around a 6.5W.

Moral of the story: lips have many, many more nerves than feet, so why shouldn't they be just as picky? I could play lead trombone on a 1.5G, or I could throw a 3GS in an alto trombone. If that feels as right and effortless as good fitting shoes, there's no problem. But, if I'm playing a mouthpiece that feels way too big or small, and dogmatically marching onward against my mouth's own logic, then I may as well be marching onwards in shoes that are 5 sizes too big.

Stan

ttf_Alex · Post by **ttf_Alex** » Fri Jul 14, 2006 8:29 am

Quote from: "Stan"I just had a wonderful thought... It's like shoes. Mouthpieces are ultimately just like shoes. You've got your mass produced Walmart shoe, your slightly higher quality shoe available only at shoe stores and your custom, high end boutique shoe.

Now, and here's the time to laugh at Stan, I'm not a really big guy. I'm 5'3, and I wear a size 6.5W. Apparently, the strangest shoe size ever. Now, I can fit my foot into a 6.5 or a 7, but it's that 6.5W that really is the sweet spot.

Of course, I could wear a size 9..I could probably even squeeze into a size 5. But, I shop around endlessly until I can find something that feels good, and that's generally around a 6.5W.

Moral of the story: lips have many, many more nerves than feet, so why shouldn't they be just as picky? I could play lead trombone on a 1.5G, or I could throw a 3GS in an alto trombone. If that feels as right and effortless as good fitting shoes, there's no problem. But, if I'm playing a mouthpiece that feels way too big or small, and dogmatically marching onward against my mouth's own logic, then I may as well be marching onwards in shoes that are 5 sizes too big.

Stan

Joe Alessi uses the same analogy in the video with Wycliffe gordon that can be found in the Trombonists section of the forum.

Joe also said something else quite interesting.....he said the reason he plays on the mouthpiece he does, is because he needs to produce a certain sound to fit in with his surroundings. In his case, the surrounding is a symphony orchestra. He also said he looks forward to the day when he can pop a nice small mouthpiece into a Bach 16 (or similar) and play what he wants to play. I know I'm paraphrasing a bit from his actual words, but I think I'm pretty close to what he said.

You can read many things in that comment by Joe Alessi. It could be that his choice of mouthpiece is not one that makes his job easier, but is more like a best fit for the circumstances he finds himself in. It could be that his choice of equipment might not be his first choice or ideal choice....but merely the best combination he can find for him to do his day to day job.

ttf_griffinben · Post by **ttf_griffinben** » Fri Jul 14, 2006 11:31 am

As a certifiable mouthpiece junkie (they just fascinate me) I figure I can be one of the twelve maybe?

OK, to start off I have to play a wide variety of styles on a wide variety of equipment in a wide variety of situations...the only non-variable is that the quality has to be top-notch.

Alright, now the main determining factor on mouthpiece rim sizes seems to be: A person's phyisical make-up. period. I mean, people can MAKE anythign sound good, but different rim sizes fit certain people better, while it seems the cup/backbore, etc. seem mainly to help facilitate a person's tone concept or help thier timbre for a given situation.

To wit: A mouthpiece is a tool that will help facilitate a particular concept, by the physical construction of the mouthpeice accentuating certain characteristics of that concept.

It isn't a substitute for paractice, etc. etc. which every post here seems to agree with.

Anyone that chooses any piece of equipment because someone else plays it is missing the point...i bet they play what other people want to hear all the time and have no concept of their own either.

There are no shortage of small mouthpiece players in here, and no shortage of big mouthpiece players either. i only hope that they all play what is comfortable and helps them get the job done right. Too small is just as bad as too big.

In the CG band I play a Bach style t-bone (not my choice, but it WORKS with the section) and a JA 5.75, which is abotu a 4 rim and super deep cup.

In dixie bands i play a 12C sized piece, sometimes a 15C.

In my professional commerical life I play a 6 3/4 sized pice.

In brass quintet, a .525 with a wick 6BS

On bass a Hammond 20BL

All very different, one on the small side, one on the large side, and two floating somewhere in the middle on tenor and a 59 size on bass (which I guess is semi-large).

None are the same in design concept.

Why?

1.) Becuase they feel comfy to my face
2.) They help facilitate the job I'm doing; i.e. they help facilitate my sound concept in those situations.

None take me more than a couple fo minutes to feel comfortable on (except sometimes the 15C if my chops are a little swollen/larger from playing the larger pieces, hence the 12C), and certainly it never takes me long after a couple of days off.

Its about feel, air and sound!.

That's all it should be for anyone.

Pick the mouthpiece that is most EFFICIENT for the job.
Good luck.

-Ben

ttf_Dave Tatro · Post by **ttf_Dave Tatro** » Fri Jul 14, 2006 12:10 pm

Quote from: "Alex"Joe (Alessi) also said something else quite interesting.....he said the reason he plays on the mouthpiece he does, is because he needs to produce a certain sound to fit in with his surroundings. In his case, the surrounding is a symphony orchestra. He also said he looks forward to the day when he can pop a nice small mouthpiece into a Bach 16 (or similar) and play what he wants to play. I know I'm paraphrasing a bit from his actual words, but I think I'm pretty close to what he said.

I have heard here and there that their hall is terrible for the trombonists and that they have to make an enormous amount of sound to project well. Thus, the large mouthpieces. Apparently Gordon Pulis used quite a large piece, a 3G or 2G ,when he was there, and for the same reason. I read somewhere that he switched to a 6.5 later in his carreer when he went to another orchestra with a better hall. Note that this is secondhand, anecdotal information at best, so take it with a grain of salt.

I do know that Jay Friedman has written about the acoustic dryness of the CSO's hall, and their need to create tremendous warmth at the horn to sound good in it. That is probably why those guys are using the very large, open equipment that they are. Jay (and, I believe, Michael) are using Bach 42's with 50 slides and 3G-sized m'pieces. Charley, well... 'nuff said!

I have found recently that I have the opposite issue in the halls that I play in. I like to play larger rims for comfort and flexibility, but in a recent recording I thought my sound was a little too warm and tubby in the hall, even though it sounded great to me at the horn, and to the other players around me. The only time it really approached what I was after was at extreme fortissimo volume levels, so needless to say, that was undesirable.

Ironically, I have switched to the Alessi mouthpieces because I can get a large rim with smaller cup sizes. I haven't heard it in the halls yet but will this coming week. I am hoping it will be the sound I am after. If not, I guess Doug E. will be hearing from me soon!

For what it's worth to this discussion, I can last a little longer in the upper register on a slightly smaller rim, and might pull out my trusty 3G for a really grueling gig, but for me, the overall performance of the larger rim sizes is tough to beat.

Dave

ttf_blast · Post by **ttf_blast** » Fri Jul 14, 2006 12:24 pm

The Trudel argument is not about the actual size of the mouthpiece.... it is about a philosophy of playing.... to use the smallest mouthpiece you can.
This may be a bigger mouthpiece than is used by another player trying to use the biggest mouthpiece he can. It is an approach... a way of choosing what you play on. This is a quite common approach in the U.K. I remember Eric Crees, principal trombone at the Royal Opera House Covent Garden, and former co-principal of the LSO saying this.
It is the way I am working at the moment.... in order to get the sound quality that I want. I find it more work on the 1 1/2G, but enjoy the results... it's funny, I never had any problems with big mouthpieces... just didn't like the sound.
The other approach is to try the biggest mouthpiece that works for you, and develop that philosophy.
What several people here have said, in effect, is that their biggest and smallest option is in fact, the same mouthpiece, and that is the one place that they will be happy. OK that's fine.
I think most players have a range of sizes that can be made to work on any given size of trombone, and that is where this question really comes into play.
Which side of the size range to go for.
It's mostly a question for advanced players with mature, well developed playing concepts and physique.... they are most likely to have this degree of flexibility and to wish to refine their playing to this degree.
Who is right ?
Everybody who gets exceptional results.
Chris Stearn.

ttf_griffinben · Post by **ttf_griffinben** » Fri Jul 14, 2006 1:18 pm

QuoteThe other approach is to try the biggest mouthpiece that works for you, and develop that philosophy.

While I have heard the philosophy of playign the smallest equipment you can I have never. ever heard of a philoso[phy of playing the biggest.

I have heard of people needing a larger inner rim diameter but the bulk of large inner rims are on bigger cups, resulting in a larger mouthpiece overall, which might be more work but is more comfortable to the face and allows more flexibility.

i have also heard of people liking their rim but wanting more room in the cup/backbore for a particular sound or timbre. But in Large shank not too many 'pieces were available like this and hence they had to shift to a larger overall rim which may have been more uncomfortable on the face but allowed the timbre they wanted/needed.

I've even heard of poepl shifting to larger overall equipment for the sound comfort or anything and having to get used to it.

But I've never heard of get the biggest mouthpiece you can and make it work. (except from some jive jazzers that couldn't even play to begin with and were looking down at orchestral guys.)

Maybe this mentality was a result of a limited amount of options in the small rim/large cup or versa vice. But in this age of customizationt that is becoming more widespread, its easier and easier for musicians to find a close to perfect fit for our face and our playing situations. Its easy to get too caught up in it and too conufsed, but real results that are beneficial to the player can be acheived. Again its a question of efficiency for the situation and the player.

-Ben

ttf_griffinben · Post by **ttf_griffinben** » Fri Jul 14, 2006 1:49 pm

Quote2. The vast majority of trombone mouthpiece manufacturing done in the 20th century was by companies run by trumpet players ( Bach, etc. etc. ) who needed a line of mouthpieces to flog with their horns and throw into the case as a freebie with every horn sold.

OK, I meant to take issue with this earlier...

OK Well specifically about Bach, the original Bach designs are materpieces. Most still are judging by teir ubiuity amongst many proffessional players that KNOW what they are doing and aren't caught up in any "Arms race".

The original bach catalogue was mroe limited than it is today and the mouthpieces were often developed for specific playign situation and often specifc players. You had Allie Clarke with the Clarke L and S which would become the 6 1/2AL and 6 1/2A. Jack Jenny is believed to be responsible for much of the small bore trombone design, I'm sure he had a hand in the mouthpieces as well. Not to mention the many first rate trombone players of the day which would work with and try different mouthpieces at the factory at the hands of old man Bach himself.

Hardly a the mentality of one just trying to flog a mouthpiece with their horn.

Good New York and Mt. Vernons are great pieces, moreover the focus of the earlier pieces were ont he smaller sized. How many Mt. vernon/New York Bach 6 1/2 AL/A's and 5G's are there compared to the 12's, 15's, 11C's? I've seen more Mt. Vernon 14D's than 6 1/2's in my lifetime. I defy you to try and find a New York Bach 1G.

In fact most of the mouthpiece manufacturing of the early 20'th century centered around these smaller sizes. Mouthpieces got larger because the medium changed. The "ideal" sound and style switched from that of a bandsman to that of the orchestral player, where demands are different.

But it just wasn't the early 20th century...if we look at the "freebie's" thrown in with every horn that got sold, you will see that they focus on the smaller sizes! Bach 42: 6 1/2AL. New King 3B: UMI 7C. New King Jiggs: Jiggs 1A (like an 11C). Even the Bach 36 comes with a 7C. These are not large sizes and hardly adding to an arms race. Olds would generally come with and Olds 3, 7C sized. I do not have information with what Buescher's martin's or Holton were supllied with when they were independant manufacturers, but most I have run across where definately a smaller size (7 or smaller), and the LeBlanc holton came with a 7 C in the small horns. Student Yamahas come with a 45-12C. Large bore Yamaha's, a 48D. Small bore Conn's got either the Conn2 or 3, niether small, and the Remington with the 88H, hardly a "too-big" piece.

Moreover the H.NWhite company which built (Now Conn Selmer) was Made King by a trombone player, and didn't manufacture a cornet until two years after he made the King trombone. Horns from King were supllied with a M21, which is basically like a 12 with a deeper cup, and later a king 11M, barley larger.

If you want to take issue with the CORPORATE mentality that allowed several subpar designs to be included with instruments, i will not argue with you. But this did not appear until the latter half of the 20th century and often appeared only on combined manufacturers that weren't very mainstream anymore. The latter-day York, Buescher, Holton, et.al were not good designs, but were hardly the norm and certainly not widespreas amongst developing trombonists.

Meanwhile even in this period Conn and bach, certainly the manufacturers with the greatest market share of large horns continued to provdide quality mouthpiece designs with their large instruments and bach with their small ones. So high quality were the designs they are still the most played on instruments of ANY manufacture.

If you want to talk schilke, that's another ball of wax, with a long and varied history and no production of trombone models.

lastly, yes the mouthpieces do provide usually only a .1mm differnce between them, but that's the differnce between a 12C and 11C, a 5GS and a 61/2AL..you tell me those feel the same to your face? The reason for different sizes were for different facial structures and muscaulature just like the afore mentioned shoes. The orginal bach designs were for a whole, and made the whole of the mouthpeice work.

In fact, Bach seems to be (until schilke) the only manufacturer to offer a truly comprehensive list of mouthpieces that catered to specific players needs in a variety of sizes. This, no doubt, has to do with the number of players working with bach and their numerous requests for different things. Some sizes that aren't used anymore were dropped fromt he catalogue (14D, 9C, etc.)

Now if you want to take issue with manufacturing flaws, general wearing down of designs, etc. fine.

But most of the mouthpieces manufactured in the 20th century were small. And most were of high quality .

The difference you are speaking of has to do with a change in overall tonal philosophy specifically related to the change in "ideal" from bandsman to orchestral player that continues to evolve to this day. It was market driven, not manufacture.

-Ben

ttf_Dave Tatro · Post by **ttf_Dave Tatro** » Fri Jul 14, 2006 2:06 pm

Quote from: "griffinben"lastly, yes the mouthpieces do provide usually only a .1mm differnce between them, but that's the differnce between a 12C and 11C, a 5GS and a 61/2AL..you tell me those feel the same to your face?

If you really want an illustration of just how sensitive your face can be to minute changes of rim size, get two sheets of paper. Place the edge of one sheet vertically across both lips about where your rim sits, on one side or the other. Holding that one in place, slide the other sheet in just outside of it, so that they are tightly together. Now pull the first sheet away from your face. I bet that you will be able to feel the difference in placement.

Lips are sensitive!

ttf_anonymous · Post by **ttf_anonymous** » Fri Jul 14, 2006 2:52 pm

These are all excellent thoughtful posts with a commmon thread all pointing in the same direction. Wonderful. So many different ways to say the same thing from so many different people and so many difference experiences.

Lets further refine the "question".

When I started this by saying that Alain Trudel said " Play the smallest mouthpiece possible" I could have added a couple of things. Firstly, for great periods of time Alain does not have to speak english, only french, and he speaks with lots of input from anglophones who add to what he is saying if he is at a loss for a term. So, let me rephrase what alain had to say---- he meant to say----

" Play a mouthpiece that is only as large as necessary to do the job.".

As large as necessary to hit 100% of the notes with 100% accuracy and a perfect sound FOR THE JOB AT HAND. He plays lots of solos, admittedly--- but he also plays a lot of principal bone in a large orchestra work as well. And lots of gigs with an accordianist as well.

So far, most of the personal examples of the folk responding to this thread are centering on example of the Bach 6 1/2AL size. Thats pretty normal. So far nobody has said--- "I'm sitting 11th out of 17 bones in my All-State Grade 10 All Star Band for the summer and the guy next to me plays a 2G on his tenor so I bought a 1G"....that was my biggest fear.

Now, back to the old examples of the horrid acoustics in New York. Perhaps they've always been that way. Perhaps they always are in 4,000 seat halls. I caught lectures with Ostrander and studied with Van Haney. They BOTH said that the toughest thing about playing in the NY Phil in the glory days under Bernstein was the volume necessary. They had to play incredibly loud, so loud that subs were tough to find who could do it , or WOULD play that loud. The orchestra left Carnegie Hall. And at the first rehearsal in the new hall they found that they could get the same sound and impact with about 40% of the effort and 40% of the previous volume.

Carnegie Hall had lousy acoustics for trombonists sitting in the back row.

And what did Van Haney and Ostrander use for mouthpieces? A handmade thing about the size of a shallowed cup 5G that eventually became the Remington mouthpiece, and a Bach 2G.

As for the "flogging" of Bach mouthpieces.....a bit hasty on my part...but it flushed out the thoughful responses. Thanks for the right answers.

Lets look at the Bach BASS trombone mouthpiece design post- 1 1/2G.
Double in-line valves came along and everybody cried about the stuffiness....enter the 1 1/4G. Enter the GM larger throat. Everybody still cried......enter the 1G. Any designing done on the 1G?? Any thought go into it? Not a whit. A Bach 1G is just the stock TENOR trombone blank with as much metal removed as possible. And it is still only as large as a Schilke 59.

So, the double valve in-line horns were still stuffy and played badly. Schilke steps up to the plate and starts carving THEIR blanks out to capture market and come up with the Schilke 59 and the Schilke 60.

Thats a problem with lousy horn design, not with the mouthpieces.

Play on, gentlemen. So far its a civil intelligent discussion, and hasn't been hijacked by the Grade 9 crowd.

ttf_Dave Tatro · Post by **ttf_Dave Tatro** » Fri Jul 14, 2006 3:07 pm

Quote from: "Kevin Marsh"
Lets look at the Bach BASS trombone mouthpiece design post- 1 1/2G.
Double in-line valves came along and everybody cried about the stuffiness....enter the 1 1/4G. Enter the GM larger throat. Everybody still cried......enter the 1G. Any designing done on the 1G?? Any thought go into it? Not a whit. A Bach 1G is just the stock TENOR trombone blank with as much metal removed as possible. And it is still only as large as a Schilke 59.

So, the double valve in-line horns were still stuffy and played badly. Schilke steps up to the plate and starts carving THEIR blanks out to capture market and come up with the Schilke 59 and the Schilke 60.

Thats a problem with lousy horn design, not with the mouthpieces.

Somewhere on his website, Gary Greenhoe rants about all the things that have been done to horns and mouthpieces in an attempt to make up for the shortcomings of what he considers to be bad valve designs. He then offers his own philosophy of what the ideal situation should be in terms of sound concept, etc. He goes on to say that changes in other areas of trombone design, including mouthpiece design, would be necessary before his valves can really show their full advantage over other designs. I've always wondered exactly what he meant regarding m'piece design.

ttf_MonsterAar · Post by **ttf_MonsterAar** » Fri Jul 14, 2006 3:46 pm

Quote from: "griffinben"QuoteThe other approach is to try the biggest mouthpiece that works for you, and develop that philosophy.

While I have heard the philosophy of playign the smallest equipment you can I have never. ever heard of a philoso[phy of playing the biggest.

From the bach mouthpiece catalog:
"Professional musicians and advanced students prefer the musical results of large mouthpieces"
and
"the larger mouthpiece produces a clearer, purer tone. The large cup diameter also allows a greater portion of the lip to vibrate, producing a larger colume of tone, and keeps a player from forcing high tones by encouraging the correct functioning of the lip muscles."

That's all directly from the 'Selecting a Mouthpiece" a section.

Now, from the 'The Cup: Diameter' sections:
"We recommend that all brass instrumentalists - professional artists, beginners or advanced students; symphony, concert or jazz band - use as large a cup diameter as they can endure and a fairly deep cup."
and
"A larger-sized mouthpiece will also offer greater comfort, making it possible to secure a good tone quality even when the lips are swollen from too much playing"
and (more interestingly):
"A small cup diameter does not permit the lips to vibrate sufficiently, preventing the player from producing a righ, full tone. The lack of tone volume tempts a player to exert more lip pressure and to force more air through the instrument that the small mouthpiece is capable of handling, creating a shrill tone."

They make it sound like you NEED a big rim or you will sound crap. No wonder so many people think they need a big mouthpiece.

ttf_blast · Post by **ttf_blast** » Fri Jul 14, 2006 4:06 pm

Ben.... you've never heard of the 'play on the biggest mouthpiece you can cope with' school ??????
I remember hearing a lot of that back in the 1970's. Perhaps a reaction to 100 years of small equipment here in the UK.
Nobody think like that in the US ??

Nothing to be shy about... it was (and probably is) a valid approach to equipment choice.
It's important to be clear here... by saying smallest, it's not always going to be small in the generally accepted sense, and by saying biggest, it's not always going to be big in the generally accepted sense. It's about how you work within your range of mouthpiece adaptability.
If there is no range, you are drawn to one mouthpiece.
If you are able to work very well through several sizes, a choice must be made.
I think that the changes in bass trombone mouthpiece size in the last 40 years really deserve a different topic all of their own... it's a one way street that is more extreme than is found on any other brass instrument. Why is a good question, but it's not this question.
Chris Stearn.

ttf_Dave Tatro · Post by **ttf_Dave Tatro** » Fri Jul 14, 2006 4:09 pm

I think this is right on the money, as long as larger and smaller are thought of as relative terms. What is small and limiting to one player may be vastly over-large to another. But for any given player, within a given playing situation, and a given reasonable range of mouthpiece sizes, this will probably hold true.

Of course what they fail to mention in terms of clarity or purity of tone is that one reaches a point of diminishing returns when they get to a certain size point, because the sound loses focus. For instance, I can play pretty good tenor on a 1.5G but the sound is not as tight and brilliant as I would like. I tend to suspect that in this instance, when they say large, or larger mouthpieces, they are probably talking about a 6 1/2 AL or maybe a 5G at the most.

Just my impressions....

[EDIT] -AAAK! this is the third post today that was intended to go right under somebody else's with no quote, and somebody else beat me to it!This is in response to MonsterAar's post about the Bach catalog.......

ttf_blast · Post by **ttf_blast** » Fri Jul 14, 2006 4:18 pm

Quote from: "MonsterAar"Quote from: "griffinben"QuoteThe other approach is to try the biggest mouthpiece that works for you, and develop that philosophy.

While I have heard the philosophy of playign the smallest equipment you can I have never. ever heard of a philoso[phy of playing the biggest.

From the bach mouthpiece catalog:
"Professional musicians and advanced students prefer the musical results of large mouthpieces"
and
"the larger mouthpiece produces a clearer, purer tone. The large cup diameter also allows a greater portion of the lip to vibrate, producing a larger colume of tone, and keeps a player from forcing high tones by encouraging the correct functioning of the lip muscles."

That's all directly from the 'Selecting a Mouthpiece" a section.

Now, from the 'The Cup: Diameter' sections:
"We recommend that all brass instrumentalists - professional artists, beginners or advanced students; symphony, concert or jazz band - use as large a cup diameter as they can endure and a fairly deep cup."
and
"A larger-sized mouthpiece will also offer greater comfort, making it possible to secure a good tone quality even when the lips are swollen from too much playing"
and (more interestingly):
"A small cup diameter does not permit the lips to vibrate sufficiently, preventing the player from producing a righ, full tone. The lack of tone volume tempts a player to exert more lip pressure and to force more air through the instrument that the small mouthpiece is capable of handling, creating a shrill tone."

They make it sound like you NEED a big rim or you will sound crap. No wonder so many people think they need a big mouthpiece.

Most of the Bach mouthpiece manual text was penned by Bach before WW2 when many players in local bands played on very, very small mouthpieces.
I think a lot of it was primarily aimed at trumpet players... but the words now drive players to look at the end of each line of mouthpieces, for that wonder-monster that will solve all their problems. I think if Bach were alive now, he might well change a lot of his comments.
You should read some of the stuff in the early manuals....
Chris Stearn

ttf_Dave Tatro · Post by **ttf_Dave Tatro** » Fri Jul 14, 2006 4:28 pm

Chris, you are undoubtedly right here. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if V. Bach was actually intending his comments to sway players to move from a 15c to a 12c size mouthpiece, or something like that.

ttf_griffinben · Post by **ttf_griffinben** » Fri Jul 14, 2006 5:16 pm

Not only that, but the change overall instrument size was beginning to shift dramaticly from the band instruments of the day to orchestral instruments, while many people (but not to many, if the recent thread in instruments is any judge) .525 is way too small for orchestral playing, it was one of THE instruments, both 36 and more commonly the .522 78H, was a huge leap over .458 and .485 bore insturments.

A larger mouthpiece was neccessary to capitalize on the larger bore size's advantages in orchestral situations.

I agree that there have been bastardizations of particular designs over time. The bass trombone world is a wonderful exapmle, the bach 1G and schilke 60 made on medium large size blanks with cookie cutter rims, ill-balanced and made to overcome the in-efficiencies of instruments. But, if dual dependant valves were required to get the job done, i guess a mouthpiece to fully expand upon this new but not fully developed technology was inevitable.

The mouthpiece had to be unbalanced in order to overcome and unbalanced instrument. But similar to the oversize crook at the bottom of a Bach 42 to overcome the stuffiness of their valve, some of these larger unblanced design have actually been dealt with and now are considered the standard or norm. Some people have discovered that a schilke 60 rim is for them! (even if the cup is waaay big.) Fortunately, now that instruments', and specifically valve technology, have progressed, we see new lines of bass trombone mouthpieces that are far better balanced and equipped to deal with today's better balanced valves, incorporating different design elements of these unbalanced mouthpieces in a far more balanced package.

Chris, I honestly really haven't heard an "as big a mouthpiece you can play" school of thought. certainly i have heard the reccommendation of going larger, but not as large as you can play.

The wonderful thing here is that everyone is pretty much agreeing is that one should play the most efficient mouthpiece for their given sound concept/playing situation, which actually lines up with the very post that kicked all this off.

Kevin said that in his playing situation that his "small" mouthpiece gave him everything he needed. Excellent. So does someone else's Allessi 1.5 and another's 6.5 and another's 22cs. It all depends ont he individual, their chops, and their situation.

Lastly (for this post) even though the current bach literature may be doing a disservice to those who only look at that, there are several manuals out there published by other manufacturers which are certainly more informative. i hope that anyone contemplating a change will consult their teacher or someone knowledgable in the subject. Go Check out Storks take on Mpces, its great.

-Ben

ttf_evan51 · Post by **ttf_evan51** » Fri Jul 14, 2006 9:40 pm

Quote from: "blast"Ben.... you've never heard of the 'play on the biggest mouthpiece you can cope with' school ??????
I remember hearing a lot of that back in the 1970's. Perhaps a reaction to 100 years of small equipment here in the UK.
Nobody think like that in the US ??

Yes there are plenty. And if not "biggest" then "big enough" in the adherent's mind at least. A friend of mine got his PhD in performance and took lessons from a certain principal in a top 5 US orchestra who told him to play a 3G with his Conn 8H and that he might not "be man enough" to do so. I've heard plenty of "helpers" telling young players to get off their 12C ASAP and into a 7C or 6 1/2 A.L.. Conversely, one of my college student friends playing a Bcah 36 cannot use a 6 1/2 A.L. under teacher's orders but must use a 7C.

In titling this topic, I should have said "smallest and comfortable" or "biggest and yet comfortable," but I thought this was understood?

ttf_Gabe Langfur · Post by **ttf_Gabe Langfur** » Sun Jul 16, 2006 6:25 am

Quote from: "Kevin Marsh"Like several other trombonists, Ray Premru etc. etc, the theory behind his mouthpiece is that it is best to play a mouthpiece AS SMALL as possible.

This was from the previous thread that led to this one, but this seemed like the right place to address it...

I studied with Ray for 4 years, and that was NOT his theory by any means.

He played his modified 2G because it was what he knew and was most comfortable on. I think he experimented a little bit with Doug Elliott's pieces, but mostly he got Doug's range of options to offer to his students. The only change he made late in his career was a Greg Black copy of his 2G.

Ray had a very pronounced underbite, which I think contributed greatly to his large warm sound. My understanding of physical variations and how they affect sound and playing facility is rudimentary, but I do know that the players I have met with underbites tend to have big sounds and pretty easy facility in the low register. What I'm saying is, I think Ray's particular facial structure made it easier for him to make the sound he did on a 2G than it would be for me, or others with a more typical jaw angle.

When I started studying with Ray, I was playing a Schilke 60 made for me by Scott Laskey when he was working there. It was quite a bit better balanced than the stock 60. Ray never asked me to change it, but it was really too much for me at the time, so I switched to a 59, and then to a Doug Elliott that was very much like a 59 (112, K). Whenever I tried other mouthpieces, including some smaller but none bigger, Ray would urge me back towards the Elliott.

Also, he often urged (gently but firmly...anyone who knew him will understand) the tenor players in the studio with bright sounds to switch to larger mouthpieces - usually from 5G to 4G. If the sound and facility were what he wanted to hear, he never messed with it, whether it was a 6 1/2 AL or a 3G.

Finally, let's not idealize Ray's sound quite so much. Don't get me wrong - I truly loved the man and miss him every day, and I wish I could sound like him most of the time. But the warm expansiveness of his sound came from a very focused center, and the time and place in which he made his awesome career were very different from today - if not so much in the UK, certainly here in the US. Close up, standing next to him, the sound was NOT huge. It was warm, round and beautiful, but not tremendously wide, particularly in the low register.

Again, don't misunderstand me - I'm not saying wider is better - the width, or breadth if you prefer, has to be one element of a beautifully balanced sound, which Ray certainly had. But here in the United States, in the third millenium, the fashion in bass trombone sounds is wider at the source than what Ray was producing. Good? Bad? I don't know...probably a little of both, like most aspects of evolution. But it just is.

---------------------------------------------

I'm now playing a much larger mouthpiece than I ever thought I would. My Laskey 93D is noticeably larger than a Schilke 60 at the rim, although the backbore/throat is more efficient and I think the cup is a bit shallower. I've gone down this road for essentially two reasons:

1. I am frequently required to play parts that are stupidly low. I play often for a group called the Boston Modern Orchestra Project (pronounced B-MOP). This is one of the very best, most exciting freelance gigs in Boston, and I love it. But sometimes I have to play music that requires a facility in the extreme low register that I simply could not achieve with the smaller mouthpieces I used to play. Believe me - I worked hard at my end of it, and ultimately had to re-examine my tools.

2. Many of the other players I play with, and particularly the principal in the RI Phil, a fantastic player named Darren Acosta, have very large sounds. I could blend with them with my older, smaller, mouthpieces, but it's much easier with the Laskey. Ditto for the tuba players; I'm lucky to play often with Mike Roylance of the Boston Symphony. He makes beautiful sounds - big and broad, but also very centered and colorful. I have a much easier time getting inside his sound with the equipment I'm playing now than what I was playing a couple of years ago. Incidentally, this same line of change is what has led me towards a yellow brass bell, from the red bell I was playing for years before that - more of the mf warmth at louder dynamics, easier blend with tuba and dark tenor sounds.

As big as it is, my Laskey and yellow bell actually help me to sound more like Ray Premru on his 2G and red brass Holton than I did with smaller pieces and a red bell.

ttf_Doug Elliott · Post by **ttf_Doug Elliott** » Sun Jul 16, 2006 8:24 am

Quote from: "Gabe Langfur"Quote from: "Kevin Marsh"Like several other trombonists, Ray Premru etc. etc, the theory behind his mouthpiece is that it is best to play a mouthpiece AS SMALL as possible.

This was from the previous thread that led to this one, but this seemed like the right place to address it...

I studied with Ray for 4 years, and that was NOT his theory by any means.

He played his modified 2G because it was what he knew and was most comfortable on.
...
Ray had a very pronounced underbite, which I think contributed greatly to his large warm sound. My understanding of physical variations and how they affect sound and playing facility is rudimentary, but I do know that the players I have met with underbites tend to have big sounds and pretty easy facility in the low register. What I'm saying is, I think Ray's particular facial structure made it easier for him to make the sound he did on a 2G than it would be for me, or others with a more typical jaw angle.
...

Gabe is absolutely right about bringing this up. The "pronounced underbite" very often goes along with the embouchure types that require smaller mouthpieces. And as Gabe said, those embouchures tend to have a huge sound and easy low range without needing big mouthpieces. Part of the trend toward larger mouthpieces is the result of more people having orthodontic work to "correct" a large overbite, thereby making more people into the jaw configuration and embouchure type that requires larger mouthpieces. There will always be embouchures in both camps, and they will never understand each other.

I haven't had time to respond to any of this thread, and Luke did a great job of stating my point of view anyway.

ttf_anonymous · Post by **ttf_anonymous** » Sun Jul 16, 2006 9:48 am

All excellent points, again.

My fear, probably based in reality from dealing even in a peripheral sense with the local university players is this: That they will read Gabe's post and miss the point.

Gabe made some excellent points: He studied with Ray for 4 years. Undoubtedly he busted his a** 22 hours a day on the horn while he was doing so and achieved some incredible results and given more time and more strength would have practiced even more, knowing how incredibly rare the opportunity to have access to Ray was.

He THEN went on to practice more and get more professional experience, until he ran into an ensemble that performs repertoire requiring stupid extremes of range.

So, in his case he is following common sense: Gabe is playing a mouthpiece just large enough to get the job done. In a professional setting. With fellow professional trombonists in the ensembles doing the same thing.

Gabe, your reputation and common sense stand in good stead here. We all enjoy your posts and you opinions.

I'm more concerned with the other 4,999 of the 5000 OTJ members who do not have decades of experience under their belts, or under their chops as it were, and don't have access to the best teachers.

They're out there. And they DO have access to computers and cash, and the future of the horn depends on them making some informed rational decisions regarding gear.

So, let the debate/ discussion continue.

ttf_anonymous · Post by **ttf_anonymous** » Sun Jul 16, 2006 10:22 am

Quote from: "evan51"
... one of my college student friends playing a Bach 36 cannot use a 6 1/2 A.L. under teacher's orders but must use a 7C.

A couple of things should be noted here, which may not have been communicated well to Evan, 1st off that the teacher was not opposed to the 6.5 AL but was opposed to switching between a 7c for jazz with a King 3b and a 6.5 AL with the 36 for classical. Secondly that the teacher is suspected of being a little fickle because another student in the same studio playing a 36 was switching between a 6.5 AL with the 36 for classical and a smaller 'piece with a Conn 100H for jazz, and the teacher had him play a 6.5 AL for both.

-G.L.

ttf_Gabe Langfur · Post by **ttf_Gabe Langfur** » Sun Jul 16, 2006 10:31 am

I hear what you're saying Kevin, and I can't completely disagree.

But I don't think it's wise to oversimplify a message just so that it is less easily misunderstood. It's an oversimplifaction to say I play a mouthpiece just big enough to get the job done. I did most of the jobs I do now on smaller mouthpieces for years, but I'm happier with the result now than I ever have been before. That's a testament to how and what I practice just as much as my equipment choices. And my equipment choice to a certain extent dictates the kind of practicing I need to do. I could decide to play something smaller (and I've considered it), but I would then need to practice differently. What I'm playing now seems to fit my practice habits and playing demands pretty well. It's a lifelong journey of discovery.

I can name other players who can do what I do at least as well, and often better, on smaller equipment. George Flynn comes to mind as just one exmple - he plays the absurdly low Lion King book on Broadway on a 1 1/2 G and essentially stock Elkhart Conn 62H. I can't even conceive how he does it.

Ultimately, the equipment matters much less than the thought behind it. Equipment is just a set of tools - you can give me as many sophisticated carpentry tools as you want; I still won't be able to make anything more complex than a simple bookshelf. Give a world-class craftsman world-class tools however, and there's no end to what he can do.

If a player gets the concepts together, then equipment choices become pretty clear. Both in my teaching and in my job at Shires, I advise students to play something pretty middle-of-the-road that seems to fit well, and use that to develop the right concepts and skills. Tweaks can be made later to further refine and fit the equipment to the player and his or her needs.

As I said, I don't think we're disagreeing...but I don't like rules or absolute statements, so I always look for a more nuanced expression of any idea.

So here's one. This is from a sheet Norman Bolter gave me recently, that he hands out to students these days:

QuoteWORKSHEET: Practice Fundamentals
(Things to listen for, to be sure they're always there)
Norman Bolter

RHYTHM
PITCH
TIMBRE

Evenness
Articulation
Dynamics
Phrasing
Style
Ease

This is copyrighted, and probably printed in one of his books. I hope he doesn't mind that I posted it here.

I think this set of guidelines for practicing is also an excellent set of things to think about when selecting equipment.

ttf_Gabe Langfur · Post by **ttf_Gabe Langfur** » Sun Jul 16, 2006 10:34 am

Oh no. I've crossed over into "addicted."

I think it's time to go practice

Anybody who finds themselves at the ITF in Birmingham England next week...please do stop by the Shires display to say hello.

ttf_evan51 · Post by **ttf_evan51** » Sun Jul 16, 2006 11:08 am

Quote from: "caltrombonist"Quote from: "evan51"
... one of my college student friends playing a Bach 36 cannot use a 6 1/2 A.L. under teacher's orders but must use a 7C.

A couple of things should be noted here, which may not have been communicated well to Evan, 1st off that the teacher was not opposed to the 6.5 AL but was opposed to switching between a 7c for jazz with a King 3b and a 6.5 AL with the 36 for classical. Secondly that the teacher is suspected of being a little fickle because another student in the same studio playing a 36 was switching between a 6.5 AL with the 36 for classical and a smaller 'piece with a Conn 100H for jazz, and the teacher had him play a 6.5 AL for both.

-G.L.

Thanks for clearing that up, Gordo.

ttf_blast · Post by **ttf_blast** » Sun Jul 16, 2006 11:43 am

Gabe, I'm at a disadvantage as I don't do many silly gigs these days. Nothing that stretches me in the low register. What you say about the modern school having moved on is probably true, but is sad nevertheless.
I often heard Ray play in the Philharmonia, and also Frank Mathieson in the LSO, Harry Spain in the Royal Philharmonic, Noel Abel in the London Philharmonic and Dick Tyack in the BBC Symphony.
The playing of these gentlemen formed my concept of orchestral bass trombone playing, which still holds good to this day.
I have heard nothing in recent years that convinces me that there are now better ways to play in an orchestra.... indeed it is quite the opposite.
I recently had a couple of long chats with Denis Wick about this very thing, and he shared some of my concerns.
All this gravitates, however, toward another topic.... that of modern sounds and styles of bass trombone playing, and what we think of them..... which though very much linked with this topic, is not at the center of this topic (I often wish we could just drift but that causes too many problems) so I must finish this line of thought, in this topic.
Chris Stearn.

.

ttf_Gabe Langfur · Post by **ttf_Gabe Langfur** » Sun Jul 16, 2006 12:03 pm

Chris,

I don't particularly care about topics drifting...I'm perfectly happy to take a conversation in whatever direction it happens to go.

I can't say for sure, but I think it's possible that the big difference between the current American and British bass trombone styles may have a lot to do with the orchestras and halls we play in. During my semester in London I heard both the Philharmonia and LSO, and I think particularly the Philharmonia sounded quite different from most American orchestras. The hall they play in (Royal Albert?) is smaller than the homes of most major American orchestras, and it seemed to me the general dynamic level of the orchestra was lower. Again, not a good or bad thing in itself, just the reality. And the way the players in those top orchestras play influences strongly the ways that their students play.

The Boston Symphony trombones play smaller mouthpieces and somewhat smaller, lighter trombones with more soft brass (that sound more different at different dynamics) than their colleagues in New York or Chicago, where the halls are not as resonant as Boston's Symphony Hall. The hall is certainly not the only factor, but they certainly make choices based on their preferences and needs, and their preferences, as elsewhere, tend to influence the choices of their students.

All those British bass trombonists (and Ray

) sure sounded wonderful, but IMO so do many of the American players playing now on much larger equipment: Doug Yeo, Randy Hawes, Randy Campora, Matt Guilford, Don Harwood, John Englekes, Blair Bollinger and of course Charlie Vernon. I mean no disrespect to anyone I may have left out...this is just quickly off the top of my head.

Concept...

ttf_anonymous · Post by **ttf_anonymous** » Sun Jul 16, 2006 12:35 pm

Just as an odd thought in here:

Kevin seems to be speaking mostly of beginners to not terribly advanced players, from what I can tell. Not fussing at people that can make it work at a professional level, but speaking about those that might not fully realize the good, bad, and ugly of the equiptment world and still make a headlong jump one way. Am I off here?

In which case, there is an inevitable aspect of human development. Adolescents- teen in peticular- live in a radically changing world. Their bodies are changing, their minds are changing, and how they fit in with the world around them is changing. The physical trend is that of a smaller person comming to ability in larger equiptment of various types.

A small trombone for instance is massive in the hands of a young beginning, say 10 years old. 6th position is a terrible challenge in beginning band. 7th isn't likly to happen.

Yet within a few years time, students can physically move off of their small horn and hoist a cannon on their shoulders- be it large tenor or bass. Suddenly the needed amount of effort to simply hold the horn is greater, the air to fill the horn is more, the mouthpiece that fits better with the horn is larger (a 12c can be hard to fill a .547 on- much less a .562). These all happen not only while they are physically coming into the realm of being able to handel these, but also often as their playing is developing ability- in a sense lnking the two, if only in the mind of the budding trombone-sprout. So then as they want to develop, it almost becomes a quest to develop into being able to handle a certain size.

Just thinking back about comments through the years of developing players wanting to be able to play larger equiptment, and developing towards that. And it was such a nice and liberating day years ago, when I bought my first hiking backpack, felt it fit like a glove so well even the salesperson was shocked, and saw the lovely size of "Medium" after 30-45 minutes contemplation on the various large packs. It cost me a couple hundred cubic inches of space, but it just fit. And for those that can't make the connection but are after size, there are 7000 cbi packs that are so massive as to make them almost completely impractical.

I wonder if that might not actually be the percieved problem.

ttf_blast · Post by **ttf_blast** » Sun Jul 16, 2006 3:11 pm

Gabe,
Nobody is resident in the Albert Hall, though the BBC Symphony plays the Prom season there. The Albert Hall is huge and boomy. The LSO is resident in the Barbican, which is quite compact and a little bass light to my ears. The other London orchestras move around, all playing in the Festival Hall part of the time.
I wouldn't put it down to halls... more concepts(as you say).
We have a heritage of G bass trombone and brass band playing that is not replicated in the US... in the past that has led to a distinction... though the students that I hear now could often have come from anywhere. Brass Bands have changed in sound concept in major ways in the last 40 years and young players listen more to recordings than live performance... things change.
There is an interesting assumption on this thread... that the bigger the mouthpiece, the bigger and richer the sound. I really don't think that it is that simple, and in fact, the opposite can be true, for some players (though you have already talked of that effect) tenor, or bass.
If comfort at the lips is so critical, why are there not trombone players playing with trumpet rims, and trumpet players playing with trombone rims, if that is their most comfortable size ?
Does not the mouthpiece have to primarily relate to the instrument in which it is played ?
Chris Stearn.

ttf_Gabe Langfur · Post by **ttf_Gabe Langfur** » Sun Jul 16, 2006 3:30 pm

Quote from: "blast"There is an interesting assumption on this thread... that the bigger the mouthpiece, the bigger and richer the sound. I really don't think that it is that simple, and in fact, the opposite can be true, for some players (though you have already talked of that effect) tenor, or bass.

It's not quite that simple, but you have to admit that generally speaking it's true, at least until you get to the point of diminishing returns at which you have to play so tight for pitch center that the sound closes down - or, converseley, so loose that you can't get around the horn.

I find this effect sometimes when players test leadpipes (particularly if they don't know what they are playing!) - that a middle size will often sound biggest and feel most free to the player, because that's the point at which the resistance is best balanced for the amount of tension that player uses at the embouchure. I think the same thing can hold true for mouthpieces.

QuoteIf comfort at the lips is so critical, why are there not trombone players playing with trumpet rims, and trumpet players playing with trombone rims, if that is their most comfortable size ?
Does not the mouthpiece have to primarily relate to the instrument in which it is played ?

Yes and no, dontcha think? I think you probably need to be within a general range of rim diameter that is appropriate to the length and diameter of tubing...but that range can be pretty large, particularly with all the other variables that can be controlled at this point.

ttf_Joel Felberg · Post by **ttf_Joel Felberg** » Sun Jul 16, 2006 4:35 pm

though I have nothing useful to add to this thread, I am absolutely fascinated by it, especially this second page. I'm enjoying it very much and hope it continues!

ttf_Gabe Langfur · Post by **ttf_Gabe Langfur** » Sun Jul 16, 2006 5:10 pm

OK, Chris and everybody else, I have another can of worms to open. Maybe you can shed some light and make them scatter

.

Large equipment is sometimes blamed for the physical problems that some American orchestral players have developed (and sometimes called focal dystonia, accurately or not). I'm thinking specifically of Warren Deck, former tubist of the NY Phil. I don't know that to be true in his case, just that it's the speculation that floats around.

But one Boston-based trombonist who never played anything larger than a 5G had to stop playing for that reason, and more recently, Bob Hughes, whom I'm told has always played a 2G, and Stefan Sanders, whom I'm told plays something like a 59.

Maybe they represent cases of true focal dystonia - physiological as opposed to mental issues, although these have ways of intertwining - and it wouldn't have mattered what equipment they played. But maybe, just maybe, their problems have had something to do with hearing and wanting to produce sounds that were larger than what their equipment (or their bodies) would really allow, and the physical contortions necessary for that made playing ultimately untenable.

CAVEAT: I'm speculating here in ways that I probably shouldn't, and if I have any information wrong, somebody please correct me. I mean no disrespect to anybody by raising these questions, and I certainly have nothing but respect and admiration for the players I've mentioned above.

I guess what I'm suggesting is that maybe playing equipment that is too small for your sound concept or your physical structure can be just as damaging as playing equipment that is too big.

I'll also go out on a slightly unpopular limb and suggest that if you want to sound like somebody, if you have a model you want to emulate, trying the same equipment they play isn't such a bad thing to do.

Sure, you will almost certainly need to customize some aspect of that equipment to better fit your body...but that's eminently do-able at this point in history. As long as you are keeping the model in mind in a really specific way, and are willing to change things from what they actually play to get what's coming out of your own bell closer to the sound you are hearing in your mind, then this is a perfectly legitimate starting point for equipment choices.

The trick, of course, is to have a really accurate model in your mind, not some idealized idea that has little to do with what your heroes actually do. That is best learned by hearing them in person and listening very carefully.

ttf_griffinben · Post by **ttf_griffinben** » Mon Jul 17, 2006 6:50 am

Go Go Go! I love it.

OK a couple of different things, The first is on Orchestral conepts between English v.s American (death match tongith at 8pm, be there). I lived in London for about 9 months and tried to go to every concert i possible could've. I noticed that the overall concept of brass playing (not just trombone playing) was indeed different from that of American brass playing.

The English style seems to go for sweetness of sound and not relying on darkness of sound to acheive it. Much more chamber like in terms of blend, very balanced yet you can still pick out parts if you wanted to...this is not a bad thing. Meanwhile the overall American ideal seems to have shifted toward a darker overall sound (Gabe where you are in Boston is one of the last bastions of it doesn't have to be dark to be warm, thank goodness!).

I wonder if Chris wasn't actually right on the money with hos bandsman statement. I've said it a little while ago, but the pendulum of darkness has been shifting darker and darker ever since the emphasis of orchestral playing became the ideal and bandsmen have fallen by the wayside (hell, Iplay in a band and we take an orchestral approach!) in temrs of being the ideal kind of brass player. Since that time equipment and concept have moved further and further away, especially in terms of tonal quiality. Listen to old CSO recordings, while its a wonderful big, blended, rich brass sound, its no where near as dark as many concept today.

Meanwhile in England, the bandman tradition is upheld and continued to this day. i wonder Chris, are professional bandsmen looked down upon over there? i never got that impression, and perhaps this explains some of the different concepts. And of course these different concepts lead to different equipment.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Alright now onto Gabe's new can of worms....

Focal distonia can happen to anyone on any mouthpiece, any type of equipment. The C.G's former principle horn player had to retire her position because of it. Its my understanding that overplayeing is the primary physical cause...over-extending one's chops coninuously beyond a healthy point. Could over large equipment help this progress, absolutely, but its not the main reason.

So yes to the second point, one might hurt themselves playign equipment too small. Anytime you take a muscle/group of muscles and force them to do something uncofartable or over extending they will nedd more time to heal/be conditioned/etc. i think the problems inherent in that are different though, more focusing on a loss of finesse and accuracy rather than physical over extention/ over exertion. Like carpal tunnel for your face.

Or the smaller equipment just won't let you do it. I have foudn the main reason for using larger mouthpieces is for darker tone color, wider breadth of sound, and louder broader volumes with those aspects. we use larger equipment to allow more tissue to vibrate. With smaller equipment you can reach a point were you can not put any more tissue in the mouthpiece or cannot get the tissue in there to vibrate in that way. i guess its a preventative measure, lol.

lastly i agree to a point that finding equipment similar or the same as an idol is potentially a good thing. But more important is to find equipment that is better similar/the same in philosphy. Deep cup, OK, but if you don't fit into an Alessi 1.5M, there's no shame in say a 3.5. Its OK to try the same thing, but don't continue if it doesn't work...look for soemthing that has the same ideal behind the design but fits YOU.

Whew, have to run...i could type much much longer on this...i guess tis best i don't

-Ben

ttf_Gabe Langfur · Post by **ttf_Gabe Langfur** » Mon Jul 17, 2006 7:17 am

Part of my assumption with focal distonia is that it is not always diagnosed properly, and my limited understanding is that a pure diagnosis has to do with a physiological, neurological disorder that has nothing to do with fatigue. Sam Burtis has made this point before, but I'll make it again a different way.

Look, all of us, even the very best players in the world, have days when it doesn't feel great. Maybe your chops are tired and a bit overstressed, maybe your valve is leaky and you don't know it, maybe there's a piece of an Oreo cookie lodged in your leadpipe and it's stuffy and you don't know why. Maybe you're playing for a conductor who is so unclear every entrance is a guess, and you get tentative and the timing of your attacks gets off a little.

Maybe you've switched to some piece of equipment - larger, smaller, whatever - that felt great at first but isn't really working out in the long run. Or some demand of your playing, internal or external, has changed such that the equipment that was perfect 10 years ago is no longer well-suited to what you want to do with it.

Too many of these days in a row, and you start to second-guess your own knowledge and abilities and change the way you practice. It can turn into a weird, vicious cycle where the physical discomfort turns into mental discomfort, which just feeds back to more physical discomfort, and so on.

I had a friend go into a horrible cycle where his playing got completely screwed up because of an allergy to the plastic rim he was playing, which he had bought because silver made him break out. The pain from the irritation to his skin changed what he was doing at the muscular level, and nothing was working right. He and his doctor finally figured out that he needed goldplated mouthpieces that never touched any kind of rubber or plastic, but that didn't solve the problems that had developed because of the contortions he put himself through from the pain. Fortunately, he was able to get a lesson or two from Arnold Jacobs, get himself back on track, and now he plays better than ever.

Good thing he never got a FD diagnosis, or he'd probably have stopped playing.

ttf_The Bone Ranger · Post by **ttf_The Bone Ranger** » Mon Jul 17, 2006 7:33 am

Does anyone have any contact with Bob Hughes, Warren Deck, Stefan Sanders or any other Focal Dystonia victims? It would be great to get their thoughts on these matters. How about Jan Kagarice? As someone who has helped people with this problem, I'm sure she could provide an insight.

As someone who enjoys looking into the physical and mental approaches to the instrument and how they inter-connect, I'd like to hear straight from the horses mouth, as this is all too easy to speculate about. Surely there's a common link between these sufferers, and even if we can't cure Focal Dystonia yet, it'd be nice to know how to prevent it. Maybe there haven't been enough sufferers to easily find this link.

I'm sure Jan could quickly shoot down some of our speculation.

Andrew

ttf_Fuzzy · Post by **ttf_Fuzzy** » Mon Jul 17, 2006 10:36 am

Mr Marsh, you're hurting my feelings. I'm part of the 'Grade 9' crowd and wouldn't go bigger then my 1 1/2G if you payed me.

Reason being, my new teacher, Andrew, aka Bone Ranger said something wich really hit me.

He said you too often get bass trombonists with too big equipment and mouthpieces who sound weird (blubby, tuba-like noise, like sinking in mud slow motion, you know what I mean,

) and dont get enough bite and growl in a Big Band.

In 30 seconds those words changed my view completely, I was planning on going to the big 1G and now wouldn't even consider it.

If anything, I'm thinking of going to the 2G----(Andrew I'll talk to you about that when (if) I get back from Lebanon.

I play in a youth orchestra with about 60 kids, and wouldn't dare go any bigger lest I knock every viola player in front of me out

So, Mr Marsh, just because there are "go bigger" 9th Graders, that doesn't mean there aren't "go smaller."

ttf_anonymous · Post by **ttf_anonymous** » Mon Jul 17, 2006 10:51 am

Gabe wrote: QuoteMaybe you've switched to some piece of equipment - larger, smaller, whatever - that felt great at first but isn't really working out in the long run. Or some demand of your playing, internal or external, has changed such that the equipment that was perfect 10 years ago is no longer well-suited to what you want to do with it.

Too many of these days in a row, and you start to second-guess your own knowledge and abilities and change the way you practice. It can turn into a weird, vicious cycle where the physical discomfort turns into mental discomfort, which just feeds back to more physical discomfort, and so on.

This is me exactly. At 47 yrs old, not teaching full time any more and just being a "Part Time" professional musician this is easier than you may think to fall into. The last couple of years I got way off center from "my sound" and playing feel etc., etc., etc.

Just recently I went back to the middle, (I think Gabe mentioned that earlier) with equipment that I know worked and have been finding I had let proper breathing and just the basics as a whole get lost. Mostly because of blaming the equipment and the physical discomfort/mental discomfort cycle.

Now that things are back on track for me, I will say don't change for just the sake of change. Make sure all of the fudamentals are right so you don't get lost in the cycle. Or at least make the changes on sound reasoning. Still, make sure the underlying fundamentals are right.

I didn't have Arnold Jacobs to help, but I did have a supportive wife (I think

) who after a couple of years of "does this sound right, which sounds better, and on and on, slapped me up side of the head and got me to pull something out.......

Paul