Who in their right mind plays a Bach 1 1/2G ??

[ttf_boneagain]

I find your comment particularly thought-provoking Gabe.  In the "pBone" thread Alistair Braden casually dropped an assertion regarding the relative importance of the vibration of the mouthpiece versus the vibration of the air column against the sides of the horn in making the bell vibrate.

It took me a few minutes to absorb that. I needed to keep in mind the fact that the horn is not an amplifier in the sense of an amplifier in a stereo.  The stereo amp adds outside power to boost a signal.  The horn focuses the signal in several ways to make the most of the power that is already there.

For simplicity, lets take Alistairs comment to an extreme, and assume that most of the vibration in the horn comes pretty much straight from the mouthpiece.  The transmission of that vibration from the lips and facial structure through the mouthpiece and into the walls of the horn would depend very much on the mass and vibrational characteristics of the mouthpiece material.  The consistency of that transmission over a wide dynamic range would depend on the "match" of the mouthpiece vibrational characteristics to the walls of the horn.  Might this present an impedence matching challenge as complex as that between the air column and open air via the flare of the horn?

Now, I have to remember that the vibration of the material is almost inaudible even very close to the horn.  What that means, though, is that THAT vibration is energy lost to the sound production in the enclosed airspace inside the horn.  And this, in turn, means shaping the tone by subtraction of what goes into the acoustical column in the first place.

Since differences in the ways different metals vibrate at different frequencies WOULD make a difference in this selective damping, might that go a little way toward describing some stainless vs. brass observations?  

This is going to take some thought....

Quote from: Gabe Langfur on Dec 22, 2010, 10:35AMMe too.

And the "less complex" sound makes the dynamic curve - by which I mean how the tone color changes as the volume changes - hard for me to understand. Maybe it's because I'm used to it, but a well-designed brass mouthpiece changes color for me in a very linear way as I get louder or softer. With the stainless pieces I've tried there's a sudden point in the loud dynamics that is very harsh, even ugly. I find a similar thing with overly heavy, overly rigid bells.

[ttf_sabutin]

Quote from: boneagain on Dec 22, 2010, 11:12AMI find your comment particularly thought-provoking Gabe.  In the "pBone" thread Alistair Braden casually dropped an assertion regarding the relative importance of the vibration of the mouthpiece versus the vibration of the air column against the sides of the horn in making the bell vibrate.

It took me a few minutes to absorb that. I needed to keep in mind the fact that the horn is not an amplifier in the sense of an amplifier in a stereo.  The stereo amp adds outside power to boost a signal.  The horn focuses the signal in several ways to make the most of the power that is already there.

For simplicity, lets take Alistairs comment to an extreme, and assume that most of the vibration in the horn comes pretty much straight from the mouthpiece.  The transmission of that vibration from the lips and facial structure through the mouthpiece and into the walls of the horn would depend very much on the mass and vibrational characteristics of the mouthpiece material.  The consistency of that transmission over a wide dynamic range would depend on the "match" of the mouthpiece vibrational characteristics to the walls of the horn.  Might this present an impedence matching challenge as complex as that between the air column and open air via the flare of the horn?

Now, I have to remember that the vibration of the material is almost inaudible even very close to the horn.  What that means, though, is that THAT vibration is energy lost to the sound production in the enclosed airspace inside the horn.  And this, in turn, means shaping the tone by subtraction of what goes into the acoustical column in the first place.

Since differences in the ways different metals vibrate at different frequencies WOULD make a difference in this selective damping, might that go a little way toward describing some stainless vs. brass observations?  

This is going to take some thought....
It's a connected series of near-infinities, boneagain. Y'pays yer money and y'takes yer chances. Can't try every combination of everything...hell, you can't even count on you being the same from minute to minute or hour to hour. But for every individual that becomes fairly adept at playing the horn in a really musical manner, over an extended period of time some general tendencies of different equipment parts begin to be come clear. I personally cannot abide the sound of lightweight and/or nickel silver anything on a horn. Leadpipes, slides, whatever. And I love the sound of a gold plated instrument while I don't much like silver plated ones. Can't play closed-down leadpipes either, nor do I care for the sound of lacquered instruments. But that's just me. You really do have to "try everything and use what works." But "everything" is infinite, so you go with what is available to you and you learn by doing.

As the great comic philosopher Steven Wright once said, "If you had everything...where would you put it?"

You really cannot pin this instrument down.

QuoteThis is going to take some thought???
You can't "think" it through. As you approach an infinity of variables, the mind becomes nearly useless.

Just go with what you know and stay awake to alternatives when they appear.

They will, too.

Bet on it.

S.

[ttf_The Rath of Conn]

<<And I love the sound of a gold plated instrument while I don't much like silver plated ones.>>

A gold plated instrument is silver plated first, correct?

[ttf_Gabe Langfur]

And while Sam is paying attention...

There was a fascinating article in a recent New Yorker issue about the problems with the scientific method. Here's the abstract: http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2010/12/13/101213fa_fact_lehrer

[ttf_octavposaune]

HI All,

Thanks Bruce for explaining Microns.  I made a bad assumption in that they were talking about Millionths of an inch.  Typical gold plating is 3 microns thick with the flash plating I have been quoted.

Can we get back to the 11/2G aspect of this thread? 

I don't have any recording equipment otherwise I would volunteer to have some sound clips of various 11/2Gs.

Depending on the cost I might procure a Kelly stainless, anyone know how much they retail for in the US??

Benn

[ttf_boneagain]

Pretty precisely under $100 http://www.kellymouthpieces.com/kmstainlesstrombone/index.asp

And they're nice to do business with!

Quote from: octavposaune on Dec 22, 2010, 12:15PMHI All,

Thanks Bruce for explaining Microns.  I made a bad assumption in that they were talking about Millionths of an inch.  Typical gold plating is 3 microns thick with the flash plating I have been quoted.

Can we get back to the 11/2G aspect of this thread? 

I don't have any recording equipment otherwise I would volunteer to have some sound clips of various 11/2Gs.

Depending on the cost I might procure a Kelly stainless, anyone know how much they retail for in the US??

Benn

[ttf_blast]

I have to agree with Sam... this stuff is so complex... the science behind it may take years to be really understood... so we have to go with what we hear and feel... and things Sam does not like... like nickel silver slides... float my boat... we are all different, thank goodness... and there is the fun. I played heavy brass slides for years because that is what I thought I should do... when I drifted into 'what worked' it turned out to be different to 'what I thought should work'

Duh and double duh !!!!

One day the guy sitting next to me in the orchestra said... 'I don't know how you make a darker sound on a Holton than a (TIS) Conn... but you do'

Well, that's it.... the trick is to find what works FOR YOU...

instrument and mouthpiece... and that is FAR less simple than it sounds.

Chris Stearn

P.S. I just love this thread and the tings it throws up 

[ttf_sabutin]

Quote from: Gabe Langfur on Dec 22, 2010, 11:57AMAnd while Sam is paying attention...

There was a fascinating article in a recent New Yorker issue about the problems with the scientific method. Here's the abstract: http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2010/12/13/101213fa_fact_lehrer



I read it.

The new always gets old, Gabe.

As above, so below. And as below so above, too.

Of all of the music written and played over say the last several centuries in the Western European/North American axis, how much of it still sounds fresh? Even if it did sound fresh when new. It loses its truth, somehow.

Evolution is everywhere.

Even the truth evolves.

Bet on it.

S.

[ttf_bonesmarsh]

A couple of quick questions for Chris, and Sam, and then a compare and contrast--to try and put the previous couple of very thoughtful posts into a broader context for my own intellectual disection.

1. Chris, how much of your daily playing is done recorded with mics? Is it an insignificant proportion relative to your "acoustic live" playing?
2. Same question, Sam. How much live, how much into a mic?

I'd expect that the diffferences are opposites. Orchestral players might record 1% of the time. Sam likely uses a mic 99% of the time. Am I close??

My point-- in the book " Standing in the Shadows of Motown" there are transcribed interviews with bass god James Jamerson. He was asked how he sets the knobs on his Fender P-bass. He opened up the tone and volume all the way, and gave the engineers EVERYTHING. They could fiddle with the knobs later if they chose to.

Hence, Sam's choice not to use nickle silver parts, and the choice of his horns and mouthpieces-- give the audience and engineers 100% of what he has. Nothing wasted.

As an orchestral player Chris has to please a music director, an audience, section mates, etc, etc. even the violas.


The point in common for both Sam and Chris, I'd expect,is that both of them have to choose to do the pragmatic thing--neither is free to play what pleases them most-- it would always be a compromise determined by the requirements of the musical job at hand.

Back to the venerable 1 1/2G, gents. I'd bet the discussion now over 1,200 posts boils down to the same answer-- the 1 1/2G isn't PRAGMATIC now.

We're all evolving to try and keep the money and gigs flowing. The recording engineers and music directors determine what is acceptable-- and we just try and go with the flow.

[ttf_blast]

Quote from: bonesmarsh on Dec 22, 2010, 02:31PMA couple of quick questions for Chris, and Sam, and then a compare and contrast--to try and put the previous couple of very thoughtful posts into a broader context for my own intellectual disection.

1. Chris, how much of your daily playing is done recorded with mics? Is it an insignificant proportion relative to your "acoustic live" playing?
2. Same question, Sam. How much live, how much into a mic?

I'd expect that the diffferences are opposites. Orchestral players might record 1% of the time. Sam likely uses a mic 99% of the time. Am I close??

My point-- in the book " Standing in the Shadows of Motown" there are transcribed interviews with bass god James Jamerson. He was asked how he sets the knobs on his Fender P-bass. He opened up the tone and volume all the way, and gave the engineers EVERYTHING. They could fiddle with the knobs later if they chose to.

Hence, Sam's choice not to use nickle silver parts, and the choice of his horns and mouthpieces-- give the audience and engineers 100% of what he has. Nothing wasted.

As an orchestral player Chris has to please a music director, an audience, section mates, etc, etc. even the violas.


The point in common for both Sam and Chris, I'd expect,is that both of them have to choose to do the pragmatic thing--neither is free to play what pleases them most-- it would always be a compromise determined by the requirements of the musical job at hand.

Back to the venerable 1 1/2G, gents. I'd bet the discussion now over 1,200 posts boils down to the same answer-- the 1 1/2G isn't PRAGMATIC now.

We're all evolving to try and keep the money and gigs flowing. The recording engineers and music directors determine what is acceptable-- and we just try and go with the flow.



first off.... you can never please viola players 
Second... yes, I hardly ever play to a mike... BUT.. I used to a lot when I lived and worked in London almost 30 years ago. In time, in tune with a good focused sound works everywhere.
A 1 1/2G is still pretty pragmatic here... if that is what works for you.
As far as pleasing M.D.s and section mates etc... when you have won a job you have more freedom... you can mess around a bit... try things out.
As a freelancer you have to please everybody everyday. George Roberts had that sorted... smile at everybody and keep your mouth shut. .... oh, and play in a way that those around you feel they are having a good day.
I think people worry too much about fitting in equipment-wise... more important to fit in music-wise.
Evolving ????
We like to think so... but the old guys could still teach us a lot.... if we listen.
I think a lot of things are more refined now... instruments, playing.... but refined can be clinical... clinical can be musically dead... the worst thing you can do to a listener is bore them.

Chris Stearn

[ttf_sabutin]

Quote from: bonesmarsh on Dec 22, 2010, 02:31PMA couple of quick questions for Chris, and Sam, and then a compare and contrast--to try and put the previous couple of very thoughtful posts into a broader context for my own intellectual disection.

1. Chris, how much of your daily playing is done recorded with mics? Is it an insignificant proportion relative to your "acoustic live" playing?
2. Same question, Sam. How much live, how much into a mic?
At one time, maybe 40% recording, 60% live.

Now? More like 5% recording, 95% live.

I do not like mics for live playing, although they are a necessity sometimes, so say 15% mics (recording + live) and 85% no mics.


QuoteI'd expect that the diffferences are opposites. Orchestral players might record 1% of the time. Sam likely uses a mic 99% of the time. Am I close??
I used to make my living in the NYC studios and played latin and jazz music in clubs and dances because I loved them. No more. No "studio scene" per se here now. I be bettah off. More fun, if less money.

QuoteMy point-- in the book " Standing in the Shadows of Motown" there are transcribed interviews with bass god James Jamerson. He was asked how he sets the knobs on his Fender P-bass. He opened up the tone and volume all the way, and gave the engineers EVERYTHING. They could fiddle with the knobs later if they chose to.

Hence, Sam's choice not to use nickle silver parts, and the choice of his horns and mouthpieces-- give the audience and engineers 100% of what he has. Nothing wasted.
Well....yeah. That is my approach. But the old guard (the '50s/'60s old guard) didn't use that approach, nor do they much in LA now if I'm not mistaken. I gave them 100% even when they wanted me to be a good boy and not bother them. So it goes. With control...eventually ...but still no backing off of the whole sound of the horn. I lost a ot of gigs walking into the control booth and playing live in the the jive engineers's faces. "Here...this is how it sounds. Make it sound like that on the tape, please." But then...I got a lot of gigs that way, too. Better gigs, if not necessarily quite so remunerative.

Y'pays yer money and y'takes yer chances.

QuoteAs an orchestral player Chris has to please a music director, an audience, section mates, etc, etc. even the violas.

The point in common for both Sam and Chris, I'd expect,is that both of them have to choose to do the pragmatic thing--neither is free to play what pleases them most-- it would always be a compromise determined by the requirements of the musical job at hand.
Well...I can't speak for Chris, but long term? A freelancer does what he does and finds his own niche in the scene. He learns from his betters...I learned a certain "civilization" in my approach to the horn from the OH so civilized and elegant Wayne Andre, for example, and from Bill Watrous, too...but I was out every night playing with madmen like Eddie Palmieri and Charles Mingus, so I walked the line.

QuoteBack to the venerable 1 1/2G, gents. I'd bet the discussion now over 1,200 posts boils down to the same answer-- the 1 1/2G isn't PRAGMATIC now.

It is if it works.

QuoteWe're all evolving to try and keep the money and gigs flowing. The recording engineers and music directors determine what is acceptable-- and we just try and go with the flow.

Or...we try to teach 'em something.

Either way works if you are playing from the heart. We are all genetically predisposed to do certain things certain ways. Try everything; find out what you do most naturally, and then...do it !!!

The ultimate jazz teaching story.

Bet on it.

S.

[ttf_boneagain]

I think these particular comments by you and Sam really point up one of our biggest challenges.  I really believe we DO have to think about it.  But I don't mean think about things and then decide, "OK.. this should work.  All done."  I mean, BECAUSE there are so many factors I can't imagine EVER getting enough science behind it to REALLY understand it.  So we have to think about what, at any given "state of the art" looks most likely to be worth investigating.  That means thinking of how we could investigate, and then whether the cost will be worth any possible result.  Even if we could talk some craftsperson to make us every possible mouthpiece free, the cost would be too high.  There just aren't enough hours in a day.  So we need to think about it, and decide which possibilities look like the best way to spend those hours.

And, as anyone who has done any searching on this forum, or studied any acoustics knows, there are far too many interactions between every component, especially including the soft ones, to be accommodating for analysis.  But some still try.  Some like Alistair come up with collections of prior work to rework them into something new, like a software program that has been shown to give darned good results (check the lituus recreation thread.)

Like so much of real life, it's neither above nor below that most things happen, but somewhere in the grey areas between.  It's all about choice and compromise.  THAT'S what needs thinking about. And since the questions don't have any solidly supported answers, possible answers also need thinking about, to help us target where we spend scarce time.

We can't do the art without the technology. The technology too complex to attack with purely analytical methods.  I'm sure Bach and whoever he worked with, and whoever he copied in whatever way he did and did NOT copy, had at least as much thinking about it and intuition as pure science in coming up with the 1 1/2G.  To me, that's a big chunk of the magic of the really serious horn designers.  They know better than ANY of us how many of the questions there really are, and how many are unanswered.  And they still come up with great playing horns and equipment. Wanna bet they think about it?

Quote from: blast on Dec 22, 2010, 12:50PMI have to agree with Sam... this stuff is so complex... the science behind it may take years to be really understood... so we have to go with what we hear and feel... and things Sam does not like... like nickel silver slides... float my boat... we are all different, thank goodness... and there is the fun. I played heavy brass slides for years because that is what I thought I should do... when I drifted into 'what worked' it turned out to be different to 'what I thought should work'

Duh and double duh !!!!

One day the guy sitting next to me in the orchestra said... 'I don't know how you make a darker sound on a Holton than a (TIS) Conn... but you do'

Well, that's it.... the trick is to find what works FOR YOU...

instrument and mouthpiece... and that is FAR less simple than it sounds.

Chris Stearn

P.S. I just love this thread and the tings it throws up 

[ttf_savio]

Sam, what you tell is always interesting. I have a few questions.  When you play in a studio do you go to the control room and tell them what to do? Stupid question but I believe you have some clue about what they should do or not do? Do you tell them or do you just play and leave it to them?

Another thing is what do you think about the 1 1/2 size when you play on top of the trombone section with your tenor trombone? Maybe another stupid question because its always the player behind that matter. But with your experience you maybe have some thoughts about it? It could be interesting to know what the tenor players think about us bass trombone players. I guess the answear is always the player behind but still, any thoughts?

Leif

[ttf_sabutin]

Quote from: savio on Dec 22, 2010, 09:28PMSam, what you tell is always interesting. I have a few questions.  When you play in a studio do you go to the control room and tell them what to do? Stupid question but I believe you have some clue about what they should do or not do? Do you tell them or do you just play and leave it to them
Not so much anymore. To tell you the truth, I have just about given up on recording. It all lies, even the best of it. I used to be bothered by the system, but now it simply makes no difference to me. I do what I do, and people either come to hear me do it live or they don't. "Recording" is a business. A big business, and my own art/craft/whatever you want to call it means very little to that business. They pay me and I use the money to live and make live music. End of story.

Recording of what I call "real music?' Music that is acoustically connected among its players with little or no electronic interference? There is no real profit in it for either the players or the producers. Its sole function is as advertising for live gigs. That's the way that I look at it, anyway. If you want to enter into recording as a business, you should sit there, play your parts and keep your mouth shut. Then they mix it so that it will not bother anybody and use it as a soundtrack for movies, ads and people's daily lives. I did that while I had to do it, and now I don't anymore. So it goes.

QuoteAnother thing is what do you think about the 1 1/2 size when you play on top of the trombone section with your tenor trombone? Maybe another stupid question because its always the player behind that matter. But with your experience you maybe have some thoughts about it? It could be interesting to know what the tenor players think about us bass trombone players. I guess the answear is always the player behind but still, any thoughts?

Leif

I don't "think about it," Leif. The guy's playing either works or it doesn't. One of my absolute favorite NYC bass trombonists, George Flynn, plays a 1 1/2G. Another couple play on much bigger m'pces. It either works or it doesn't. Only the player has to "think" about what m'pce he is using. Other players then have to adapt to their section. I am more particular about blend than are most ensemble trombonists, but only insofar as I can put my own sound in the right place for the ensemble. That's why I play 4 different tenor sizes w/4 different m'pces. When I put togeher a trombone section myself,...especially if I am writing the music and/or leading the band...then I "think" about such things. But as a working section player? Naaaaahhhh...I just adjust to what's happening as best as I can and then go on about my business. My business of fitting into the section no matter which part I am playing.

Everything else is just criticism, and critics suck.

S.

[ttf_Jox]

Does Dave Taylor play on a 1.5G sizeish still?

[ttf_Jox]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6CezuYq089A&NR=1&feature=fvwp

It's a cartoon intro but isn't that the classic bass trombone sound?

[ttf_blast]

It's pretty limited but I would say that is the sort of sound we call 'classic'.... oh, and Dave Taylor moved onto a slightly larger mouthpiece a few years ago... I think it was a Thein or perhaps a Houser that is based on a Thein. 'What mouthpiece are you playing Dave ?' is not the sort of thing I tend to ask... sorry.

Chris Stearn

[ttf_Patrick Bates]

Wow. Haven't looked at this thread for quite a while, sure covers a lot of territory.
I go along with "it either works or it doesn't".

Heard a guy this summer playing a Kanstul .547 horn with no valve, with a 1 1/2 G. The guy is a heck of a technician, cna play anything. He doesn't think the same things I think, plays a lot of notes for may taste. Probably I just don't think that fast. But he can REALLY get around the horn and make amazing sounds with a huge mouthpiece....(for the horn and what he's playing)  It works for him. Heck, I play that size piece on my Duo Gravis. The guy is new up here, anyone heard Ron Westray lately??

[ttf_Jox]

Quote from: blast on Dec 25, 2010, 04:56PMIt's pretty limited but I would say that is the sort of sound we call 'classic'.... oh, and Dave Taylor moved onto a slightly larger mouthpiece a few years ago... I think it was a Thein or perhaps a Houser that is based on a Thein. 'What mouthpiece are you playing Dave ?' is not the sort of thing I tend to ask... sorry.

Chris Stearn
American or European Dave Taylor? 

I meant the NY Dave Taylor

[ttf_blast]

Quote from: Jox on Dec 26, 2010, 09:39AMAmerican or European Dave Taylor? 

I meant the NY Dave Taylor

I know.... I meant NY Dave Taylor... we do know each other.... and whilst we have talked trombones a little bit... you have to draw the line at mouthpieces... TOO personal. 
When musicians get together, they tend to talk music.... and food.... and drink... and....

Chris Stearn

[ttf_John Beers Jr.]

So... I just replaced my small-1.25 Stork 1.5, with a "legitimately 1.5G" Hammond 19BL. Doesn't quite have as much core to the sound, but I can work on that in practice. The important thing is that it's infinitely easier to play in every register and provides a nice "edge", important given that my only real bassbone gig is with a jazz ensemble, and edge is key.

I tried it out on the Yamaha 'Doug Yeo' Xeno about 10 minutes before i left Dillon Music. I'll be damned if I didn't easily hit a high Eb on the thing, which is about as well as I do on my large tenor. Rim felt "just right" the moment I put the thing on my face.

A well-designed 1.5 sized mouthpiece really CAN do everything.

[ttf_savio]

Quote from: John Beers Jr. on Dec 28, 2010, 06:02PMA well-designed 1.5 sized mouthpiece really CAN do everything.

No, it cant do anything.  Only you can make it do something.


Leif

[ttf_John Beers Jr.]

Quote from: savio on Dec 28, 2010, 07:51PMNo, it cant do anything.  Only you can make it do something.


Leif

Leif-

What I meant was that I can't do much at all, but the mouthpiece can do everything I can. If I really believed there was a magic mouthpiece that would make me play like Jorgen van Rijen out there, I wouldn't have spent the last 7 years without changing so much on my setups as what kind of steel was in the screws I used on the trigger linkages.

[ttf_johngsteel]

Well spoken, John.

It is as if a magic spell is cast when you find the mouthpiece/horn/player combo matches.  Good things happen.  For some, it is a 1 1/2G for the MP part of the equation.

[ttf_John Beers Jr.]

OK, so, the Hammond has now passed the "audience" part of the test. Played it in a single-blind (he was blind, I wasn't) against the Stork for my father (an accomplished trombonist, though he's never played Bass) and he said "It's close, but I think I prefer the second one [Hammond]" which is a great improvement over what I saw with a borrowed Rath B1.25, where both my father and stepmother said "No contest, the Stork has a better sound, to a degree that it doesn't matter how easy it is for you to play it".

I think I'll keep this thing for 7 years now.

[ttf_boneagain]

Yay John!

funny the wonders working on one mouthpiece for a long time can do for you!

But be ready just in case the "honeymoon effect" so ably described earlier in this thread sets in.  Maybe get some rough recordings without much reverb of your sound in these early stages, and refer back to them weekly?  As we've heard in the clips Savio has been gracious enough to post, he always gets back to his sound.  If you have a sound you WANT to be in your head that isn't really quite there yet, the Hammond could end up suspiciously like the Stork, given time.  I wasn't ready to move on from my Bach 1 and friends bathtubs until the sound in my head really changed.  Now I can't imagine going back (bach?)

Enjoy the great new mouthpiece!  With the kind of hard work you put in, I'm sure it will get a fair trial!

Quote from: John Beers Jr. on Dec 29, 2010, 05:21PMOK, so, the Hammond has now passed the "audience" part of the test. Played it in a single-blind (he was blind, I wasn't) against the Stork for my father (an accomplished trombonist, though he's never played Bass) and he said "It's close, but I think I prefer the second one [Hammond]" which is a great improvement over what I saw with a borrowed Rath B1.25, where both my father and stepmother said "No contest, the Stork has a better sound, to a degree that it doesn't matter how easy it is for you to play it".

I think I'll keep this thing for 7 years now.

[ttf_Burgerbob]

Speaking to the "Honeymoon Effect" on the Hammond-
I switched from an excellent mouthpiece, a George Roberts replica about a year ago. I plugged in the Hammond, and voila! I could play everything. The high register problems I've had with my horn since I got it were almost gone. Pedals were easier. Articulations, especially multiple, were easier. Here now, months later, nothing has changed. I have no intention of even trying another 1.5 sized piece any time soon. I hope John's experience is the same as mine.

[ttf_savio]

Quote from: Burgerbob on Dec 30, 2010, 11:02AMSpeaking to the "Honeymoon Effect" on the Hammond-
I switched from an excellent mouthpiece, a George Roberts replica about a year ago. I plugged in the Hammond, and voila! I could play everything. The high register problems I've had with my horn since I got it were almost gone. Pedals were easier. Articulations, especially multiple, were easier. Here now, months later, nothing has changed. I have no intention of even trying another 1.5 sized piece any time soon. I hope John's experience is the same as mine.

I think the "honeymoon" effect is a "myth" kind of thing. If the mouthpiece works it will works. If it is the right for you and you love it. It should not be a downperiod. I did try some, and the best for me did never have it.

Leif

[ttf_sabutin]

Quote from: savio on Dec 30, 2010, 01:27PMI think the "honeymoon" effect is a "myth" kind of thing. If the mouthpiece works it will works. If it is the right for you and you love it. It should not be a downperiod. I did try some, and the best for me did never have it.

Leif

No myth, Leif. Common and understandable.

New balance? Better balance? Good equipment for you.

But the "new balance" changes other balances that you have achieved w/your old equipment, and an adjustment period ensues. I know of literally no really advanced players who do not recognize this syndrome. Perhaps there are some, but not many.

It's not a myth; it's just what happens. Like breaking in a new pair of shoes. They eventually feel better than the old ones if they really fit you, but the first long walk or two? Always interesting. And once in a while...they just don't fit no matter how much money you spent on them.

Yup.

Same same w/equipment.

Bet on it.

S.

[ttf_savio]

Quote from: sabutin on Dec 30, 2010, 01:46PMNo myth, Leif. Common and understandable.

New balance? Better balance? Good equipment for you.

But the "new balance" changes other balances that you have achieved w/your old equipment, and an adjustment period ensues. I know of literally no really advanced players who do not recognize this syndrome. Perhaps there are some, but not many.

It's not a myth; it's just what happens. Like breaking in a new pair of shoes. They eventually feel better than the old ones if they really fit you, but the first long walk or two? Always interesting. And once in a while...they just don't fit no matter how much money you spent on them.

Yup.

Same same w/equipment.

Bet on it.

S.




I don't bet Sam.  I have experienced some mouthpieces "feels" good on the lips but don't give the same result as the feeling.  I have experienced mouthpieces that don't feel good but still works much better than I thought.

I did listen a recording from 1912 of Arthur Pryor. Something to think about because he did make it work. We ask what equipment makes it works for us. Waste of time? Sometimes its maybe good to stop looking at all the candy's and just play? Of course I'm not the right to tell that. Maybe its to much candy's in the world?

Leif

[ttf_GetzenBassPlayer]

At some point, a player must analyze the equipment they are using. I believe the better the player, the higher the stakes, the more it matters.

[ttf_boneagain]

Leif,

We have at least one very well supported opinion (that is, lot of face time involved) for every mouthpiece variant listed in this thread.  To me that means those folks are finding the fit Sam is talking about.  And (again, to me) that means we do NOT have "too much candy." Unless we treat them as candy and alternatives to the unavoidable hard work of making all the parts Sam mentioned balance.  When the "candy" makes it so we can balance more easily, or more according to the sound in our heads, or both, then it is no longer "candy" but "the right tool for the job." 

If you are going to frame a house, it makes good sense to figure out the difference between a framing hammer, tack hammer, and what's in between.  And if you are going to frame a lot of houses with a framing hammer, it makes sense to check the balance and swing of a few.  But when all is said and done, it's not even a little bit about testing hammers, but driving nails.  So in that sense I agree with your thoughts about "candy."  But even in the 1 1/2G family, there is enough variation in how each variant balances with the whole system that I think a rational mouthpiece quest is more like different types of hammers, than minor variations on one type of hammer.

IMHO, the reason your mouthpiece quest lasted so long was NOT because there were so many possibilities, but because you are a fine player, and could distinguish the differences each variant made in how you achieved your sound.  Certainly not a "too much candy" situation! 

Quote from: savio on Dec 30, 2010, 05:18PM
I don't bet Sam.  I have experienced some mouthpieces "feels" good on the lips but don't give the same result as the feeling.  I have experienced mouthpieces that don't feel good but still works much better than I thought.

I did listen a recording from 1912 of Arthur Pryor. Something to think about because he did make it work. We ask what equipment makes it works for us. Waste of time? Sometimes its maybe good to stop looking at all the candy's and just play? Of course I'm not the right to tell that. Maybe its to much candy's in the world?

Leif

[ttf_John Beers Jr.]

Quote from: savio on Dec 30, 2010, 05:18PM
I don't bet Sam.  I have experienced some mouthpieces "feels" good on the lips but don't give the same result as the feeling.  I have experienced mouthpieces that don't feel good but still works much better than I thought.

I did listen a recording from 1912 of Arthur Pryor. Something to think about because he did make it work. We ask what equipment makes it works for us. Waste of time? Sometimes its maybe good to stop looking at all the candy's and just play? Of course I'm not the right to tell that. Maybe its to much candy's in the world?

Leif

Then the next question to ask is what would Arthor Pryor have pulled off with Trombotine, a Greg Black/Doug Elliott/Griego/Monette/whatever mouthpiece custom fit for his embouchure, and a Shires/Edwards/Williams/Schmelzer/Inderbinen with a bore of his choosing and a a sleeveless lightweight brass slide, to say nothing of learning from teachers with 50+ years of experience teaching the trombone rather than figuring everything out for himself.

Like how many licks it takes to get to the center of a Tootsie Pop, the world will never know.

Leif: I think you'll get a kick out of this article about Simone Mantia, a virtuoso who, like Pryor, had to figure everything out for himself (I just read it myself last night and it's got me wondering): http://www.dwerden.com/eu-articles-lehman-Mantia2008.cfm

Quote from: GetzenBassPlayer on Dec 30, 2010, 05:28PMAt some point, a player must analyze the equipment they are using. I believe the better the player, the higher the stakes, the more it matters.
GBP,
I agree with you 99.999% of the way there, but I think it also depends on the player's physiology/embouchure type/whatever as well. Sam talks a whole lot about the routine of "put horn down on knee, bring horn into ready to play position, start playing" and how important it is for consistency on the horn. Different players are affected to different degrees by relatively minor changes in horn balance, rim size, cup depth, backbore, valve type, etcetcetc... I wouldn't say that it's entirely dependent on the caliber of player in question.

[ttf_GetzenBassPlayer]

I did not say it was entirely dependent; I said, "the more it matters". In community groups, there is a lot more tolerance for things like chipped notes and less than perfect pitch. The farther up the ladder you go, the less of these impurities are put up with.

[ttf_timothy42b]

Quote from: GetzenBassPlayer on Dec 30, 2010, 07:36PM In community groups, there is a lot more tolerance for things like chipped notes and less than perfect pitch. The farther up the ladder you go, the less of these impurities are put up with.

Clearly true.  In the community group I currently play with, a considerable amount of purity would be ignored.

(though not by me)

But I wonder if there's not an individual sensitivity factor being missed.

You are assuming, I think, that the more advanced a player, the more sensitive to mouthpiece differences he may be.  But maybe some embouchure types are just less mouthpiece dependent than others.

I've tried a number of mouthpieces over the years, mainly because somebody's recommended a better one, or told me what I should be playing.  None of them seemed to make all that much difference.  So I have several in a drawer, and one I play.  It could be my lack of skill, I suppose; but it could also just mean that the way I play, it doesn't matter as much as it does to some of you. 

[ttf_savio]

Quote from: John Beers Jr. on Dec 30, 2010, 06:23PMThen the next question to ask is what would Arthor Pryor have pulled off with Trombotine, a Greg Black/Doug Elliott/Griego/Monette/whatever mouthpiece custom fit for his embouchure, and a Shires/Edwards/Williams/Schmelzer/Inderbinen with a bore of his choosing and a a sleeveless lightweight brass slide, to say nothing of learning from teachers with 50+ years of experience teaching the trombone rather than figuring everything out for himself.



Arthur Pryor did show us the trombone is made for music. Today, 100 year after, many dont understand this.

Leif

[ttf_savio]

What I mean John is that all the things we have today maybe would just disturb him? He would get lost in trying all and disturb him? And all this instruments too. A real jungle. I just say it because it did disturb me. I grow up with 3 choices Wick, Bach and schilke. And was told to stay with one and work with it. I should have listen what my teachers told. But its never to late.  Good luck with the Hammond John.

Quote from: GetzenBassPlayer on Dec 30, 2010, 05:28PMAt some point, a player must analyze the equipment they are using. I believe the better the player, the higher the stakes, the more it matters.

Yes I think so too.

Quote from: boneagain on Dec 30, 2010, 05:55PMLeif,

We have at least one very well supported opinion (that is, lot of face time involved) for every mouthpiece variant listed in this thread.  To me that means those folks are finding the fit Sam is talking about.  And (again, to me) that means we do NOT have "too much candy." Unless we treat them as candy and alternatives to the unavoidable hard work of making all the parts Sam mentioned balance.  When the "candy" makes it so we can balance more easily, or more according to the sound in our heads, or both, then it is no longer "candy" but "the right tool for the job." 

If you are going to frame a house, it makes good sense to figure out the difference between a framing hammer, tack hammer, and what's in between.  And if you are going to frame a lot of houses with a framing hammer, it makes sense to check the balance and swing of a few.  But when all is said and done, it's not even a little bit about testing hammers, but driving nails.  So in that sense I agree with your thoughts about "candy."  But even in the 1 1/2G family, there is enough variation in how each variant balances with the whole system that I think a rational mouthpiece quest is more like different types of hammers, than minor variations on one type of hammer.

IMHO, the reason your mouthpiece quest lasted so long was NOT because there were so many possibilities, but because you are a fine player, and could distinguish the differences each variant made in how you achieved your sound.  Certainly not a "too much candy" situation! 

Dave, thanks for your words. But there is a lot of "candy" out there? isn't it? Just look the DE mouthpieces. 108, 109, 110 all with many options? All are roughly inside the 1 1/2g area. All are well made quality. Oh too much candy.

[ttf_boneagain]

Leif,

I really, really don't think the "minor" variants like DE provides are "candy."  I think modern machining and other economic changes have taken mouthpieces to a very good place.  To continue on Sam's excellent shoe analogy: there was a time when much of Europe wore wooden shoes, unless they were in the small minority that could afford totally custom made footwear.  How many sizes of wooden shoes were there really?  How much fitting to an exact foot was there, versus getting "close enough" that thick socks could take up the slack?

I think there are STILL more "face types" than mouthpiece variants.  I'm fairly convinced that for some "face types" minor differences won't hurt much, if at all.  But for others, it can be dramatic how a small tweak here or there makes all the difference in the world.  That's quite a different pursuit from trying EVERY tweak because that is easier than putting in time to really check out the player-mouthpiece-horn-hall balance.

I think the example you chose is exactly what I think of as NOT "candy."  Good choice

Quote from: savio on Dec 31, 2010, 06:59AMDave, thanks for your words. But there is a lot of "candy" out there? isn't it? Just look the DE mouthpieces. 108, 109, 110 all with many options? All are roughly inside the 1 1/2g area. All are well made quality. Oh too much candy.

[ttf_johngsteel]

Good point, Dave.  My George Roberts Kanstul is not a minor tweek but a major change from the 1 1/2G.  Being true, it would fall into the latter, not the former which is more along the lines of the intent of this thread (my assumption).  Its roots do directly come from the 1 1/2G, but different rim size, different back bore.

[ttf_svenlarsson]

The New Years concerts are done, today I have time to do other things (lifting snow) so I tested My Bach three 1 ½ G:s (2 new and 1 mount Vernon) and my GW Adriano.
Well, I get to the same conclusion as always.
This is how the pieces work for me:
The two new 1 ½ G sound shrill and uninteresting.
The Mount Vernon sound more full, still a complex ed sound as Sam might say.
The Adriano does sound less complex-ed, but I can get it to sound more focused, It sound more “classic” then the new 1 ½ G:s.
I had owned lots of 1 ½ G:s over the year, as I let my students borrow mpc:s sometimes they fall in love with them and buy them, sometimes I forget about them . The student forget too.
When it comes to Bach, I don’t like any new 1 ½ G:s, that is for me and my face, they do work for some other players.
 
I do agree about the Adriano gives a less complex sound compared to the Mount Vernon,
But for me it is perfect, Maybe I have a complex sound in my face?

What is a classic bass trombone sound? Well, I know what I think is a classic bass trombone sound. The bass trombonist in The Nordic Glenn Miller Orchestra has classic bass trombone sound. His mpc has an inner diameter of 30 mm.

Quotehttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6CezuYq089A&NR=1&feature=fvwp
It's a cartoon intro but isn't that the classic bass trombone sound?This could easily be a big mouthpiece. The sound is not only mpc. (Actually I would bet it is a bigger mpc)
Some players sound big on mpc:s that other sound small on.

I am not saying that 1 ½ is an outdated mpc, it is a very good piece for the right mouth.
It to small for some, to big for some.

[ttf_John Beers Jr.]

Thank you for the interesting post, Sven. Adding more fuel to the "1.5G and smaller = classic bassbone sound" fire, I ran across this recording of Dr. Denson Paul Pollard doing "Barnacle Bill" on youtube today: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xOeGy1qNe8w

I'd call that a classic bass trombone mouthpiece. It has the "grit" (for lack of a better word) going below the staff , and according to the last post I've seen (by Gabe), he's been playing on a 93D, which is quite a bit closer to a Schilke 60 than it is to a 1.5G.

Obviously, the setup works for him (waaay too big for me, even were I going for a pure slide tuba type of sound, which I'm not yet convinced I am) but curious whether other folks would call it the desired 'classic' sound.

[ttf_blast]

Quote from: John Beers Jr. on Jan 04, 2011, 01:00PMThank you for the interesting post, Sven. Adding more fuel to the "1.5G and smaller = classic bassbone sound" fire, I ran across this recording of Dr. Denson Paul Pollard doing "Barnacle Bill" on youtube today: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xOeGy1qNe8w

I'd call that a classic bass trombone mouthpiece. It has the "grit" (for lack of a better word) going below the staff , and according to the last post I've seen (by Gabe), he's been playing on a 93D, which is quite a bit closer to a Schilke 60 than it is to a 1.5G.

Obviously, the setup works for him (waaay too big for me, even were I going for a pure slide tuba type of sound, which I'm not yet convinced I am) but curious whether other folks would call it the desired 'classic' sound.
'
Now John, I wouldn't call that a 'classic' sound at all. I would say that is firmly 'modern American'. Exceptional playing from one of the best around, but not a 'classic' bass trombone sound.
I find it hard to see how you can think otherwise... but there you are, we all have a different take on things like sound.

Chris Stearn

[ttf_John Beers Jr.]

Maybe it's possible that I'm looking for something different when I think of a "Classic" George Roberts sound, or when i think of a "modern American" sound than you do.

I think of Gabe's playing (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sjV9R5RkFVw&feature=related) or John Rojak's playing (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ez8THmlc8lQ&feature=related) when I think of modern American. A much 'smoother' tone quality across the horn, with a lot less 'grit', though in both of their cases they could probably pull off the grit as a musical choice.

Listening to Massimo Pirone on this recording of "Makin' Whoopee" (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_DgjVFCIYtg ) though, which I know I'd previously stated I considered a great classic bassbone sound, immediately after the Denson Paul Pollard video (As well as the George Roberts 'medley'/Meet Mr. Roberts recording), I can see that I was thinking in microscopic increments between Rojak/Pollard, and there's a whole spectrum of sound further on the 'classic' spectrum. Much more available on the "chocolate" side of the spectrum than there is on the "cream" side, if you catch my drift.

I got myself turned around in circles .

[ttf_blast]

Quote from: John Beers Jr. on Jan 04, 2011, 03:19PMMaybe it's possible that I'm looking for something different when I think of a "Classic" George Roberts sound, or when i think of a "modern American" sound than you do.

I think of Gabe's playing (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sjV9R5RkFVw&feature=related) or John Rojak's playing (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ez8THmlc8lQ&feature=related) when I think of modern American. A much 'smoother' tone quality across the horn, with a lot less 'grit', though in both of their cases they could probably pull off the grit as a musical choice.

Listening to Massimo Pirone on this recording of "Makin' Whoopee" (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_DgjVFCIYtg ) though, which I know I'd previously stated I considered a great classic bassbone sound, immediately after the Denson Paul Pollard video (As well as the George Roberts 'medley'/Meet Mr. Roberts recording), I can see that I was thinking in microscopic increments between Rojak/Pollard, and there's a whole spectrum of sound further on the 'classic' spectrum. Much more available on the "chocolate" side of the spectrum than there is on the "cream" side, if you catch my drift.

I got myself turned around in circles .

I wouldn't say any of these players you cite are in one camp or another... all quite individual. I have played duets with Gabe and John and found it really easy to connect with both of them. Gabe studied with Ray Premru and there are aspects to what he does that I find very familiar... as I said, an easy connect with both of them. John and Gabe are part of the modern American school, sure... though I think they would simply say that they play bass trombone... and they do it very well too.
If we go back and listen to George Roberts, Tony Studd etc, the sound is very dense and compact, yet big too. There is probably nobody playing just like that today, but there are those who keep the flame and try for a modern version. Others tread a different, but equally valid path. For most people, mouthpiece selection is part of that sound journey... but there are exceptions.

Chris Stearn

[ttf_Jox]

If you ever get a chance to listen to John Rojak's cd you should. To me, it sounds really different but a lot "bigger" in recording.

 I would say the most classic sound now would be some of those recordings Savio put up of himself playing.

[ttf_savio]

Quote from: Jox on Jan 04, 2011, 07:09PMIf you ever get a chance to listen to John Rojak's cd you should. To me, it sounds really different but a lot "bigger" in recording.

 I would say the most classic sound now would be some of those recordings Savio put up of himself playing.

Thanks Jox, its just some melodies. My kids also play them. But yes I think I have that sound I had in my mind when start playing bass. I grew up with Roberts, Huges, Premru's sound in my ear. Could never understand why I never got this "punch" in my sound. My teacher had it, he did look at my 59 mouthpiece and told: Big toilet bucket.  He told me to switch but did never push me. I didn't understand anything 

To understand I tried an 1 1/2g some few years ago. It was an accident, I thought it was a bigger one.Then I finally begin to listen what Chris told. Suddenly I understand that this was what was I looking after for 25 years. Never to late. I have a lot of fun now.

Modern American players like Pollard is also what I like to listen. Its not my sound ideal but he have a really nice bass sound. I really enjoy the 3 Cd's he make. Listen he play that 1st cello suite. Its so nice, so musical, so nice focused sound. For me nearly unbelievable.

But my personal  bass sound ideal is different. Its just me, a personal thing. I listen Charles Vernon and all bass players I can. I enjoy them all. I listen tuba players, tenor players, even some trumpet players. I try to pick up things from all music.

Its just when I play alone in my practice room. I  have that vintage sound ideal I grew up with. The only LP music I had this time was Jeff Reynolds. I have listen that LP so much it nearly is become thin like a modern CD.   

Leif

[ttf_blast]

Quote from: Jox on Jan 04, 2011, 07:09PMIf you ever get a chance to listen to John Rojak's cd you should. To me, it sounds really different but a lot "bigger" in recording.

 I would say the most classic sound now would be some of those recordings Savio put up of himself playing.

All sorts of things change on recordings. In the same room, John has a great sound that is full and very rich and alive. How well that rich quality is picked up will vary from recording to recording... but he basically sounds great.

I love the quality that Savio has on the tracks he has offered us... yes, it is that classic sound. 

As Savio says, there is more than one good bass trombone sound and we should enjoy great examples of all styles and schools.

Chris Stearn

[ttf_Jox]

So Savio any other recordings? hint hint hint

It's too bad that almost none of those classic players mentioned had solo albums and cds and mp3s like a lot of the big bass artists do now. I do know there is a website with George Roberts lp on it. The George Roberts lp that I DO have is him but with a mute on the whole time. It's like going to strip club but the girls just wear big vests and jeans the whole time. Yeah its good but I wanted more 

[ttf_savio]

Quote from: Jox on Jan 05, 2011, 08:25AMSo Savio any other recordings? hint hint hint

It's too bad that almost none of those classic players mentioned had solo albums and Cd's and mp3s like a lot of the big bass artists do now. I do know there is a website with George Roberts lp on it. The George Roberts lp that I DO have is him but with a mute on the whole time. It's like going to strip club but the girls just wear big vests and jeans the whole time. Yeah its good but I wanted more 

Jeff Reynolds have an album "The big trombone". Its out again as a CD. George Roberts did play with Riddle Orchestra. On iTunes it is an album called "Makin Whoopee" with Nelson Riddle. Bob Huges have a lot of orchestra recordings. Search this forum. Premru have a lot of recordings from PJBE. There is many more I think if we search a little.

Also remember many use the 1 1/2g in Symphony Orchestra today. Its not outdated. Chris use it, In UK there is many I think. In Norway there is many, (or most do in the few orchestra that is here). All this orchestras often send their concerts on internet radio. There is many more around I believe. Remember so many good orchestras there is around the hole world. If we live nearby we should go and listen.

I did take away my mics because its so dangerous to just take a mouthpiece and go record it.  How does this sound, how does this sound. I took it away. I put it up soon to make some real recordings. Not just for testing mouthpieces.

Jox, I'm glad some like it.  I did learn a lot from it. Both bad and good things. 

Leif

[ttf_savio]

Quote from: Jox on Jan 05, 2011, 08:25AMSo Savio any other recordings? hint hint hint


http://www.mediafire.com/?xdh8ww4uichla

OK I put up my mic today in my bed room. I play Makin Whoopee once again. And two different versions. Again they are boring. I play them as they are on my music paper.

The 2g I got from Chris is special. This mouthpiece have a special effect when I go down in the register. Its very powerful. Cant explain it but when I play a low C or any pedal it really can rock the world. Its kind of very firm down there. It have a strength to the sound that is strange. And the best: its very safe to blow. Predictable. So it did learn me one thing. There is difference in quality among mouthpieces. This one have the little extra that make it special. Today I believe most makers make quality. Some of the Bach mouthpieces can be good, some can really be bad quality.

I put up two versions to make more excitement for you. Witch one is my Black Hill 2g and witch is a Greg Black 138 light? The winner get a beer. Click the link above if you want to listen.

Leif