Mouthpiece Question(s) (Backbore, Venturi, Throat)

[BrianJohnston]

Hi all - Happy New Year.

This topic will be very detailed as i've been down many rabbit holes, and have been relatively successful navigating out of them:

I have a main mouthpiece that I am "happy" with. It is the correct rim size, shape & thickness. Correct cup depth and shape. (I know this through much trial and error of Rim & Cup changes)

What I am less sure of is the venturi (Throat) vs the backbore, and here is why;

Articulations: Good, but i'm wanting them to be ever so slightly easier in all registers.
Sound: Good, but i'm wanting it to be more focused in the upper register (G4 and higher)
Flexibility: Can get slightly unfocused during faster passages quicker than i'd like
Slurs: Good, but a bit difficult in the mid-low range during softer dynamics
Endurance: Average, maybe below average, especially with solo rep
Dynamics: Great, less than often blowback in loudest dynamics

My thoughts after researching: would be the throat may need to be a smidge larger, and the backbore would need to be more focused to help with the above mentioned. (Obviously, I am no expert, which is why I am asking the question)

Please don't write BS like: "Do more longtones", "Practice more", I do all of those already, but equipment matters to help as well.

Looking forward to learning more on this subject matter, and to be guided in a good direction.

Thanks,
- Brian
https://fwphil.org/about-the-phil/meet- ... hnston-1-1

[hornbuilder]

I think you would do better spending time with your favorite mouthpiece maker and hashing out details.

Maybe Vennture could be a good option in this case?

[Crazy4Tbone86]

Hi Brian,

Another Brian here. I enjoy your questions because it is obvious that you have given things much thought and experimentation. I cannot offer an answer because I think answers will be very different depending on the musician and what they are trying to accomplish. I can share this with you because I am on a mouthpiece journey myself.

In terms of large-bore tenor, I am not going to suggest that anyone try to use what I use. My large-bore tenor is a freak-of-nature mouthpiece that Todd Clontz and I made about 15 years ago. I took some measurements to him that I predicted might work and were not offered by any maker. I got very lucky......it works extremely well for me.

Anyway, back to your inquiry. About a year and a half ago, I switched from being the trombonist in my brass quintet to being the bass trombonist. Thus, my playing mix has changed to: 65% bass trombonist, 25% tenor trombonist and 10% alto trombonist. Since I am dedicating much more time to bass trombone, I have needed to find a mouthpiece that works best for me on bass and I am currently locking in on that mouthpiece.

I am currently playing a Doug Elliott mouthpiece on bass trombone. The particular mouthpiece is a moot point in this conversation. The important point is that it is a completely modular (three piece) system, which may be best for your journey. The original shank in my set up came with a .302 inch throat. I have gone back to Todd Clontz (he has an extraordinary collection of mouthpiece cutting tools) and he has created three more shanks for this mouthpiece with throats of .304, .306 and .308. The backbore on all of these mouthpieces is identical (even the original .302 from DE). Currently, the .308 throat seems to work best for orchestral and large ensemble work and the .306 has a touch more clarity for chamber music (brass quintet) work. I still might have a couple more shanks made to really lock in on what is best for me (i.e. a .307 for chamber groups and a .309 or .310 for large ensembles), but I have yet to determine if that is necessary.

So....what am I saying? Maybe you need to go in the direction of a three-part modular mouthpiece (if you do not use one already) and see if you can have a few different shanks made in which the throats have different sizes but all other parameters are identical?!? If you can find a mouthpiece that is close, the throat only needs to be changed by one or two thousandths to fine-tune it.

[Doug Elliott]

To me, all of those symptoms point to the throat being too large already (but the typical opinion which you already expressed is to try even bigger), and the cup being too bowl shaped (but you think it's good).

I didn't jump on either of those bandwagons because I like things to be easy. I have spent "the pandemic years" fine-tuning things and I'm very happy with where my designs are now. Open, focused, and easy.

[Matt K]

Yeah, I’ve found the 3 piece setup to do wonders for me as well. Doug recently made some changes (trade secret!) to the shanks which dethroned my previous G depth cup for an E depth cup. Gave me a little more of what you’re after with range and clarity and let me go slightly more open on the leadpipe. But assuming you do definitely stick with the same rim and cup, being able to swap them out to A/B test makes it easy to compare.

Edit: Doug beat me to reply, so my phrasing might not make sense.

[BrianJohnston]

To me, all of those symptoms point to the throat being too large already (but the typical opinion which you already expressed is to try even bigger), and the cup being too bowl shaped (but you think it's good).

I didn't jump on either of those bandwagons because I like things to be easy. I have spent "the pandemic years" fine-tuning things and I'm very happy with where my designs are now. Open, focused, and easy.

Thank you, although the cup is already rather funnel shaped

[harrisonreed]

It'd help to know what you're playing currently before we start saying if you need to change things up. Saying "yeah go bigger!" when we don't know what you're on yet doesn't make much sense.

General advice and observations though:

Articulations: Good, but i'm wanting them to be ever so slightly easier in all registers.

Articulations are affected by most aspects of a mouthpiece, but particularly by the shape of the rim and the alpha angle. The throat isn't where I would start making changes to get better articulations unless you needed to really change the airflow such that your tongue position would need to change and be higher.

Sound: Good, but i'm wanting it to be more focused in the upper register (G4 and higher)

Probably has more to do with cup shape and volume than the throat. Also has just as much to do with your trombone setup and tongue position. Focus in the upper register comes about (if you are cheating with a mouthpiece) from a smaller cup volume and larger backbore volume.

Flexibility: Can get slightly unfocused during faster passages quicker than i'd like


Could be caused by rim shape and diameter, but also the throat -- Americans like to play with their mouths as open as possible, which makes flexibility go down the toilet. Ironically, opening up the throat and airflow will encourage the player to close up the space in their mouth with their tongue. Some combination of these things will get you to better flexibility.

Slurs: Good, but a bit difficult in the mid-low range during softer dynamics.

See above.

Endurance: Average, maybe below average, especially with solo rep

Probably a combination of a cup volume that is way too big, a cup diameter that is way too big, and a rim profile that is way too fat, possibly with too low an alpha angle. You must be playing Alessi mouthpieces!

Dynamics: Great, less than often blowback in loudest dynamics

I don't know if blowback sounds great to me or not. Dynamics are definitely most affected by the the throat, loud and soft. To me it is very difficult to play very soft passages or very loud passages on large bore pieces under .282 (M reamer?). Small bore and alto is a different story.

[BrianJohnston]

It'd help to know what you're playing currently before we start saying if you need to change things up. Saying "yeah go bigger!" when we don't know what you're on yet doesn't make much sense.

Something between a Hammond 12MXL & 12L slightly larger inner rim diameter, and thicker rim width.

[tbonesullivan]

Flexibility: Can get slightly unfocused during faster passages quicker than i'd like


Could be caused by rim shape and diameter, but also the throat -- Americans like to play with their mouths as open as possible, which makes flexibility go down the toilet. Ironically, opening up the throat and airflow will encourage the player to close up the space in their mouth with their tongue. Some combination of these things will get you to better flexibility.

This is definitely something I have noticed as well, with the syllables used to describe the mouth shape usually being "tah" or "taw", resulting in the largest volume inside the mouth. As someone who also studied voice as well as did college radio work, learning to shape the inside of your mouth and throat is definitely important in order to get the desired voice timbre, and i feel this also carries over to brass playing with regards to sound concept.

If you don't have the "soft machine" configured right for what you are trying to play / sound like, it's not going to sound as good, IMHO, and will require more effort. If I'm playing a high part on alto trombone, I definitely don't want a nice huge air space inside my mouth.

[harrisonreed]

Oh just noticed, by "opening the throat" I was referring to the mouthpiece not the human. Yeah, "too open" on the soft machine is just as bad as "clenched up"

[BrianJohnston]

Thank you all above for the replies.

I'm beginning to think my desired changes are equivalent to that of Hammond's F3 which was released only in the last few years.

[Doug Elliott]

I watched you on YouTube, and a lot of your "issues" make sense as those are all fairly typical for your embouchure type. You're a IIIB in Reinhardt terms (Jay Friedman, Ralph Sauer, Charlie Vernon, Christian Lindberg are all that type).

I would downsize everything just a little bit, maybe even the rim inside diameter. You're working too hard, you don't need as big a mouthpiece as the other major embouchure type (IIIA) which is much more common.

[BrianJohnston]

Thanks again! That Reinhardt embouchure type is new to me.

It seems like I need a little bit of the following;

Slightly more funnel cup
Slightly smaller throat
slightly more narrow backbore

I will obviously try some before making any final decisions.

[Doug Elliott]

Maybe those things, maybe not... A very slightly smaller rim may actually be part of it also.

You may have been influenced by the 'bigger is better" syndrome, which works well for IIIA's but not for IIIB's.

Reinhardt is not "new," it's just been ignored, downplayed, and denigrated by the mainstream for the past 80 years.

[BrianJohnston]

Maybe those things, maybe not... A very slightly smaller rim may actually be part of it also.

You may have been influenced by the 'bigger is better" syndrome, which works well for IIIA's but not for IIIB's.

Not influenced with "bigger is better";
With my last mouthpiece, I was experiencing blowback too often. I had the cup deepened slightly which fixed that issue. (Although it perhaps increased the size of the throat as well?)

I suppose I am a bit afraid of messing with the throat because the air seems to be flowing very well in most dynamics and ranges, it's the sound throughout that seems to need more focus and focus/ease in the high range.

I'm obviously no where near as knowledgable as you in terms of mouthpieces, just trying to share what I can and be guided in the right direction by someone such as yourself.

[tbonesullivan]

Not influenced with "bigger is better";
With my last mouthpiece, I was experiencing blowback too often. I had the cup deepened slightly which fixed that issue. (Although it perhaps increased the size of the throat as well?)

"blowback" is not always caused by equipment being too small, and may be unrelated to size. perceived resistance to "flow" can also be resistance to "vibration".

[Briande]

I found the exchange of information in this chain extremely interesting! Had never even heard of the Reinhardt embrouchure types before!

[Trombo]

I watched you on YouTube, and a lot of your "issues" make sense as those are all fairly typical for your embouchure type. You're a IIIB in Reinhardt terms (Jay Friedman, Ralph Sauer, Charlie Vernon, Christian Lindberg are all that type).

I would downsize everything just a little bit, maybe even the rim inside diameter. You're working too hard, you don't need as big a mouthpiece as the other major embouchure type (IIIA) which is much more common.

I wonder how Friedman and Vernon play so well on huge mouthpieces, because their embouchure type requires small or medium sizes like Sauer and Lindberg do?

[Doug Elliott]

Playing ALL the time. And Jay didn't use a big mouthpiece until about the time Charlie got there.

[Trombo]

I think it's a bite issue. The overbite requires large mouthpieces, while the underbite requires small ones. This is my observation and I could be wrong.

[Doug Elliott]

That's not it at all.

[BrianJohnston]

Jay technically doesn't play on a huge piece. Sure it's a larger rim & a deeper cup, but that cup is funnel shaped making it feel smaller, and his throat and backbore are quite focused, making the overall feel not seem as big as the specs make it seem.

[Trombo]

Jay technically doesn't play on a huge piece. Sure it's a larger rim & a deeper cup, but that cup is funnel shaped making it feel smaller, and his throat and backbore are quite focused, making the overall feel not seem as big as the specs make it seem.

He likes the 3g size. Is he on Hammond 10 now? He used to play Bach 3G.
On alto he played Bach 5GS.

[BrianJohnston]

He likes the 3g size. Is he on Hammond 10 now? He used to play Bach 3G.
On alto he played Bach 5GS.

He plays custom pieces that fit his physiology more specifically, similar to what I mentioned one post above.

[Trombo]

What tenor and alto mouthpieces does Charlie Vernon currently play? I know he used to play alto size 4 and tenor between size 2g and 3g.

[BrianJohnston]

What tenor and alto mouthpieces does Charlie Vernon currently play? I know he used to play alto size 4 and tenor between size 2g and 3g.

I don't know with Charlie, i'm sure theres another thread that explains what he's on.

[Trombo]

What tenor and alto mouthpieces does Charlie Vernon currently play? I know he used to play alto size 4 and tenor between size 2g and 3g.

I don't know with Charlie, i'm sure theres another thread that explains what he's on.

Perhaps this would help you find your ideal mouthpiece. Jay was also "happy" with his Schilke 51B until he tried 3G.

[BrianJohnston]

I already know what i'd like changed after extensive research, just need to get the specs right

[tbonesullivan]

I don't know with Charlie, i'm sure theres another thread that explains what he's on.

Perhaps this would help you find your ideal mouthpiece. Jay was also "happy" with his Schilke 51B until he tried 3G.

How exactly is knowing what Charlie Vernon plays going to help in finding the ideal mouthpiece? I also think you are vastly oversimplifying the reasons that Jay Friedman had for changing from a 51B to a 3G.

[GabrielRice]

Not that this is necessarily relevant, but the last time I spent any time with Charlie - about 12 or 13 years ago - he was playing a Laskey 95D on bass, a 59D (roughly a 4G) on tenor, and a Bach 7C on alto.

[BrianJohnston]

Perhaps this would help you find your ideal mouthpiece. Jay was also "happy" with his Schilke 51B until he tried 3G.

How exactly is knowing what Charlie Vernon plays going to help in finding the ideal mouthpiece? I also think you are vastly oversimplifying the reasons that Jay Friedman had for changing from a 51B to a 3G.

I completely agree with both of your sentiments. Jay specified exactly how his change went down in the first three paragraphs of the following article: http://www.jayfriedman.net/equipment-size-does-matter/

[Burgerbob]

How exactly is knowing what Charlie Vernon plays going to help in finding the ideal mouthpiece? I also think you are vastly oversimplifying the reasons that Jay Friedman had for changing from a 51B to a 3G.

I completely agree with both of your sentiments. Jay specified exactly how his change went down in the first three paragraphs of the following article: http://www.jayfriedman.net/equipment-size-does-matter/

This is a great article, and a good reminder as to why we probably shouldn't be playing what Jay or Charlie plays

[harrisonreed]

The key is that Jay wasn't just doing research or doing specs on his ideal mouthpiece, he was actually designing and implementing gear that fit his needs, and changing it as he went. I think that what Jay plays has just as little to do with what you might need as what Charlie plays. You aren't either of those guys. I don't mean that in terms of musical expression or anything mean, you just physically are different from them.

Think about it -- "this mouthpiece later became the 51B"

Go do that, man. Don't decide on what you need here in this forum, go make it.

[BrianJohnston]

The key is that Jay wasn't just doing research or doing specs on his ideal mouthpiece, he was actually designing and implementing gear that fit his needs, and changing it as he went. I think that what Jay plays has just as little to do with what you might need as what Charlie plays. You aren't either of those guys. I don't mean that in terms of musical expression or anything mean, you just physically are different from them.

Think about it -- "this mouthpiece later became the 51B"

Go do that, man. Don't decide on what you need here in this forum, go make it.

Well yeah, I don't think the internet was even close to existing back then, and I am actively still practicing and trying to increase my knowledge on the subject. We are lucky to have such a resource, and I have plenty of experience on TC taking things with a cup of salt

[harrisonreed]

Send in the pieces that you like to Vennture to get scanned, and compare them. That doesn't cost very much and you can learn a lot, even if you don't end up having them make you a mouthpiece. The new software probably has the 51B in it, but maybe not the new Friedman stuff. The software is free and if the model already exists in their database, you're set.

[BrianJohnston]

I've only heard good things about Vennture - Definitely going to test it out.

[Tbarh]

I had a Hammond «Friedman» and actually thought that the throat /backbore was too big compared to the Marcellus piece i previously used..I had Ken Titmus plug and redrill the shank and copied the Marcellus throat/backbore onto it… Perfect for me!! Still big sound , but easy to keep the sound together at pianissimo and in the high register..More singing sound too!

[tbonesullivan]

I had a Hammond «Friedman» and actually thought that the throat /backbore was too big compared to the Marcellus piece i previously used..I had Ken Titmus plug and redrill the shank and copied the Marcellus throat/backbore onto it… Perfect for me!! Still big sound , but easy to keep the sound together at pianissimo and in the high register..More singing sound too!

Well, doesn't Friedman often play on a Bach 50 slide? He uses the equipment necessary to get the HUGE sound desired by the Chicago Symphony. His setup is hardly typical, and neither is he as a player. He seems to like a rim shape that is also not typical, but loves it so he has it used on every mouthpiece he plays on. The same goes for many other top level professionals who have had to specialize their playing and equipment to an extreme degree.

[BrianJohnston]

Well, doesn't Friedman often play on a Bach 50 slide? He uses the equipment necessary to get the HUGE sound desired by the Chicago Symphony.[/quote]

It's not actually to get a huge sound, he uses a mouthpiece that works for his playing style, he uses an instrument set-up that works for the way he uses his air, and his sound concept.

He told me the bass trombone slide is about it being less resistant than it is about sounding like a bass trombone, and knowing the way he plays, it makes sense.

[Trombo]

[quote=tbonesullivan post_id=198189 time=1672950397
[/quote] How exactly is knowing what Charlie Vernon plays going to help in finding the ideal mouthpiece? I also think you are vastly oversimplifying the reasons that Jay Friedman had for changing from a 51B to a 3G.
[/quote]

[Trombo]

Perhaps this would help you find your ideal mouthpiece. Jay was also "happy" with his Schilke 51B until he tried 3G.

How exactly is knowing what Charlie Vernon plays going to help in finding the ideal mouthpiece? I also think you are vastly oversimplifying the reasons that Jay Friedman had for changing from a 51B to a 3G.

What is wrong and shameful in trying the equipment of great players if you have the same emboushure type?

I had a Hammond «Friedman» and actually thought that the throat /backbore was too big compared to the Marcellus piece i previously used..I had Ken Titmus plug and redrill the shank and copied the Marcellus throat/backbore onto it… Perfect for me!! Still big sound , but easy to keep the sound together at pianissimo and in the high register..More singing sound too!

Well, doesn't Friedman often play on a Bach 50 slide? He uses the equipment necessary to get the HUGE sound desired by the Chicago Symphony. His setup is hardly typical, and neither is he as a player. He seems to like a rim shape that is also not typical, but loves it so he has it used on every mouthpiece he plays on. The same goes for many other top level professionals who have had to specialize their playing and equipment to an extreme degree.

What is wrong and shameful in copying the equipment of great players if they sound incredible on it. Maybe Jay started a new equipment standard? A hundred years ago, symphony orchestras played the .485 bore and 12C. Today everyone plays .547 bore and 5G. The Bach 5G was designed as a bass mouthpiece. Maybe tomorrow everyone will play .562 bore and 3G? Jay did it first.

[BrianJohnston]

What is wrong and shameful in trying the equipment of great players if you have the same emboushure type?

What is wrong and shameful in copying the equipment of great players if they sound incredible on it. Maybe Jay started a new equipment standard? A hundred years ago, symphony orchestras played the .485 bore and 12C. Today everyone plays .547 bore and 5G. The Bach 5G was designed as a bass mouthpiece. Maybe tomorrow everyone will play .562 bore and 3G? Jay did it first.

I don't believe it's a good way to find out what works for you for many reasons;

1. The skill level of someone like Jay Friedman or Charlie Vernon is rarely comparable to the vast majority of players
2. Although the embouchure may be the same, the lips aren't, neither is the face structure, air, tongue etc...
3. Sound concept, and ideas of phrasing or general playing will always be different from player to player

How to find out what works for you:

1. Consider your current equipment, what works, what doesn't
2. Educate yourself on what each part of the mouthpiece, or instrument do in terms of sound/feel
3. Try out a bunch of equipment which you believe fits what you believe you need.
4. Fine tune little details in the equipment that is working well for you, but you believe there can be improvement.

[Burgerbob]

Maybe Jay started a new equipment standard? A hundred years ago, symphony orchestras played the .485 bore and 12C. Today everyone plays .547 bore and 5G. The Bach 5G was designed as a bass mouthpiece. Maybe tomorrow everyone will play .562 bore and 3G? Jay did it first.

Considering Jay has been playing a similar setup for 20 years or so, the world is catching on pretty slowly.

[Doug Elliott]

Also consider that Jay and Charlie are probably playing nearly 100% of the time in the same hall with the same orchestra, and are pretty much required to fine tune their equipment to their own particular situation and needs.

Different literature notwithstanding, the acoustics of the hall may largely dictate what works.

[Posaunus]

Also consider that Jay and Charlie are probably playing nearly 100% of the time in the same hall with the same orchestra, and are pretty much required to fine tune their equipment to their own particular situation and needs.

Different literature notwithstanding, the acoustics of the hall may largely dictate what works.

Indeed. Recall that Denis Wick "designed" his original 4AL for his own use "for a problematic concert hall."

[BrianJohnston]

Indeed. Recall that Denis Wick "designed" his original 4AL for his own use "for a problematic concert hall."

Chicago's Symphony Hall is a problematic concert hall indeed.

[GabrielRice]

I had to adjust my equipment for a problematic pit. You do what you need to for your primary job.

[Trombo]

Maybe Jay started a new equipment standard? A hundred years ago, symphony orchestras played the .485 bore and 12C. Today everyone plays .547 bore and 5G. The Bach 5G was designed as a bass mouthpiece. Maybe tomorrow everyone will play .562 bore and 3G? Jay did it first.

Considering Jay has been playing a similar setup for 20 years or so, the world is catching on pretty slowly.

A hundred years have not yet passed.
But Joe Alessi for example uses a dual bore .547/562 and a 2g size mouthpiece. Two of the world's greatest symphonic players play such big equipment with great results. The conservative majority has something to think about.

[Burgerbob]

Considering Jay has been playing a similar setup for 20 years or so, the world is catching on pretty slowly.

A hundred years have not yet passed.
But Joe Alessi for example uses a dual bore .547/562 and a 2g size mouthpiece. Two of the world's greatest symphonic players play such big equipment with great results. The conservative majority has something to think about.

Joe plays a single bore slide. Both Jay and Joe play large rims on very tenor-sized cups- the Friedman pieces in particular are not large past the rim. They are just using what fits their faces, with a cup and backbore to match their job.

[Trombo]

What is wrong and shameful in trying the equipment of great players if you have the same emboushure type?

What is wrong and shameful in copying the equipment of great players if they sound incredible on it. Maybe Jay started a new equipment standard? A hundred years ago, symphony orchestras played the .485 bore and 12C. Today everyone plays .547 bore and 5G. The Bach 5G was designed as a bass mouthpiece. Maybe tomorrow everyone will play .562 bore and 3G? Jay did it first.

I don't believe it's a good way to find out what works for you for many reasons;

1. The skill level of someone like Jay Friedman or Charlie Vernon is rarely comparable to the vast majority of players
2. Although the embouchure may be the same, the lips aren't, neither is the face structure, air, tongue etc...
3. Sound concept, and ideas of phrasing or general playing will always be different from player to player

How to find out what works for you:

1. Consider your current equipment, what works, what doesn't
2. Educate yourself on what each part of the mouthpiece, or instrument do in terms of sound/feel
3. Try out a bunch of equipment which you believe fits what you believe you need.
4. Fine tune little details in the equipment that is working well for you, but you believe there can be improvement.

I agree with you in many ways, but the issue of equipment today is a matter of tradition. I know that in music colleges and conservatories in the US today all students are sent to .547 bore and 5g. A very small number play in colleges on 4g or more. Almost no one in the USA plays 6.5 al in symphony orchestras and conservatories. Although it may be that according to the emboushure type, very small mouthpieces are required for someone.
And in some countries, on the contrary, they study at conservatories and play in symphony orchestras on .547 and 6.5al. You can name such great players as Michel Becquet (France), Alain Trudel (Canada), Jörgen van Rijen (Netherlands). All of them play at 6.5 size. Few people in these countries play big mouthpieces.
A hundred years ago, when everyone was playing .485 bore and 12c size, 6.5al seemed huge.
So it's all just a matter of tradition. Maybe in the future everyone will play .562 and 3g, who knows?