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

ttf_boneagain · Post by **ttf_boneagain** » Fri Dec 10, 2010 5:36 am

Chris,

You don't address Jim's question about "...is the 1 1/2G obsolete?" I think, though, that you and Doug, and the bulk of this thread, comprise a resounding "NO!"

This whole thread, and the latest shifts, really point up to how relevant the 1 1/2G still is. Most of what seems to work best is nicely quantified and qualified in terms of some shift from "that" reference. Of course, the famous Bach variability ensures we really have "those" references, but the point remains. We can assess the impacts of fine tuning our mouthpiece choices relative to a fairly stable "home base" of the 1 1/2G. In addition it is still a fine mouthpiece to play on.

Something else pointed up in this thread might be phrased as "Who in their right mind MAKES a 1 1/2G?" I hope the community really appreciates the insane level of dedication on the part of the folks like Elliott, Rath, Black, Stork, and the rest to pay enough attention to adjust eh minute details that cause the variants to play the ways they do! As trombone players we are keenly aware of how much time we put in outside the concert stage in service of our art. We should be grateful that the mouthpiece makers do the same. If we REALLY think about how much time and effort goes into deriving the designs, then machining them properly, $200 each seems like quite a bargain. As posts by you and others like Savio have shown, ALL these mouthpiece have endearing traits. Ask anyone who had to hunt mouthpieces thirty years ago... we have an embarassment of riches today... so many GOOD choices!!

ttf_johngsteel · Post by **ttf_johngsteel** » Fri Dec 10, 2010 3:19 pm

Dave,

Interesting argument.

In my opinion, a mouthpiece does not become obsolete because of age of design. If it works, it works. I know several people who play on a vintage 1 1/2g, a clone, or a variant. I have found that it works very well for getting a more commercial sound on a older horn. It works great on my Kanstul, and worked better than any other on my old King Duo Gravis and Olds 24g.

The mouthpiece does affect the sound and how the instrument plays. So it depends upon the player, the instrument, and the desired sound.

So who plays it? Many do. Obsolete? No way.

ttf_boneagain · Post by **ttf_boneagain** » Fri Dec 10, 2010 5:59 pm

John,

I second your opinion that, "...Quote from: johngsteel on Dec 10, 2010, 03:19PMa mouthpiece does not become obsolete because of age of design. If it works, it works.
"

From what I've seen, there HAVE been "fashion show" modifications to the 1 1/2G, but I think the folks I named plus several others have modified things to work better for certain folks under certain conditions. This seems to allow folks who desire the "1 1/2G sound" (THERE'S a whole thread of its own!) to get it under conditions not conducive to getting the sound on the original family of Bach variants.

Regarding mouthpiece matching, I KNOW the designer of the Duo Gravis had the 1 1/2G firmly in mind for that horn.

You know, with the delicate balance of player<->mouthpiece, and mouthpiece<->horn, and player<->horn via the mouthpiece, it's a wonder ANY of this works at all! Perhaps in that context we could say, not only is the 1 1/2G NOT obsolete, but is a TRUE classic.

ttf_Torobone · Post by **ttf_Torobone** » Sat Dec 11, 2010 12:22 am

When I bought my used Duo Gravis in 1990, I mail ordered a Bach 1 1/2G for it. I'm not sure if the DG was designed for the 1 1/2G; it just seemed like a logical starting point as my Holton 1 1/2G had a Remington shank and didn't fit too well. I had traded a MV 1 1/2G for the Holton, but it had been reamed out by its original owner to have virtually no back pressure.

I'm not sorry I got the Bach, but it was never great with my horn. In fact, I blamed the horn rather than the MP. Of course, now I read that 1 1/2Gs are made to such inexact standards that I might have a lemon; I can't say. After a layoff from playing bass, and buying a Kelly 1 1/2G, I couldn't remember which of the 3 worked best, so I took all 3 to a rehearsal. The Bach was the least comfortable for me, but none were great.

About 2 years ago, I tried a bunch of Denis Wick mouthpieces, and settled on the Heritage 1AL. It's very pretty, and my situation changed to a point where I didn't feel like I needed to change the horn.

I was playing some big band charts the other night, and I was pleased with my sound in and above the bass clef, but my pedals took more work to get the pop I was hoping for. For now, I'll blame me, but maybe I need another MP.

One thing is for sure: I won't be taking my Bach 1 1/2G off the shelf anytime soon. Your mileage will vary.

ttf_blast · Post by **ttf_blast** » Sat Dec 11, 2010 1:19 am

What is clear from this thread is that the 1 1/2G size area of mouthpiece still has a big following, both for sound and physical blowing characteristics. The Bach 2G and 1 1/2G are both classics, though the huge production variation from Bach means that there are many Bach 1 1/2Gs (and 2Gs) out there, both good and bad.
It also seems established that the early Bachs stamped 'New York' and 'Mt Vernon' are more likely to be good, or great, though the odd gem turns up right through to new examples.
This variation from mouthpiece to mouthpiece needs to be talked about. I have never played two supposedly identical mouthpieces from ANY maker that are actually the same. Some vary less, but there are better and worse examples of all makes and models of mouthpiece. If you get a good one, hold onto it.
Many people are put off a particular mouthpiece simply because they bought a bad example of it.
At the end of the day, if you want that classic sound of the Bach, the very best way to get it is to find a great old Bach mouthpiece... but if you would rather not search for years and pay mega bucks, there are some real alternatives being made now. Some have far fewer quirks than the old Bachs and get a great sound... a sound which many might prefer.
One of my students brought in a load of gear yesterday... he was looking for the best sound combo for a big band gig... very low and loud charts. In the end I preferred the sound of his Elkhart Conn 71H with his regular Ferguson L..... though a G&W Chinook plugged into the old Conn was pretty spectacular.... but it was very 'modern'... very in-your-face. Perhaps fun for a night, but the Ferguson was more interesting.
After we found his best set up I played the same thing on my Holton 169/Elliott combo..... tee hee.... I was happy.

Chris Stearn

ttf_sabutin · Post by **ttf_sabutin** » Sat Dec 11, 2010 2:12 am

Quote from: blast on Feb 25, 2010, 03:41AM---snip---

Thinking of doublers, the standard Bach 1 1/2G is not too popular with them... I don't think that the rim shape relates to many tenor offerings, so I can see why.

---snip---

Chris Stearn
I don't think it's a rim shape thing, Chris. Size does matter, in this instance. Tenor players who double on bass usually have trouble balancing their embouchure through the minute shifts that start in the general

->

area and get more serious around trigger D through to the lower pedal tones. A larger diameter rim/bigger cup seems to allow them...us, and me for sure...to make allowances for our relative lack of precision and balance down there w/out having to practice the instrument every day. During the few times over the years when I have gotten to play challenging music on bass (and only bass) for a number of days, my reliance on larger m'pces seems to decrease exponentially. But then a couple of of weeks or months go by and there I am, having to play convincingly on bass again. 1 1/4 sizes seem to work best.

I'm playing a Warburton 1 1/4 G now...Gabe recommended it and he was right on the money. It really works well on short notice with my Shires TruBore bass. It's the smallest big m'pce about which I can say that. I was playing on a Jeff Reynolds L...a real bathtub, but with a gorgeous sound....but that lack of precision for a doubler also comes with a lack of corner strength in the money register, and the tendency after about 1/2 an hour of playing for me was to fall into that tub and begin to drown. High and low. No more. I played a very hard rehearsal and several days later an equally hard two sets with a Gil Evans-influenced composer recently (Josh Shneider...the real deal) , and had almost no time to prepare for either because I was busy playing a couple of different tenors. When I was playing either 1 1/2G or bathtub-type m'pces I would have gotten the embouchure yips in the low range before 15 minutes had passed if I had no practice time to prepare in the days prior to the gigs. Now? No yips and plenty of sound as well. Nice, strong low range attacks when necessary, too.

Doublers do it differently, I guess.

Later...

Sam

ttf_blast · Post by **ttf_blast** » Sat Dec 11, 2010 2:34 am

Quote from: sabutin on Dec 11, 2010, 02:12AMI don't think it's a rim shape thing, Chris. Size does matter, in this instance. Tenor players who double on bass usually have trouble balancing their embouchure through the minute shifts that start in the general

->

area and get more serious around trigger D through to the lower pedal tones. A larger diameter rim/bigger cup seems to allow them...us, and me for sure...to make allowances for our relative lack of precision and balance down there w/out having to practice the instrument every day. During the few times over the years when I have gotten to play challenging music on bass (and only bass) for a number of days, my reliance on larger m'pces seems to decrease exponentially. But then a couple of of weeks or months go by and there I am, having to play convincingly on bass again. 1 1/4 sizes seem to work best.

I'm playing a Warburton 1 1/4 G now...Gabe recommended it and he was right on the money. It really works well on short notice with my Shires TruBore bass. It's the smallest big m'pce about which I can say that. I was playing on a Jeff Reynolds L...a real bathtub, but with a gorgeous sound....but that lack of precision for a doubler also comes with a lack of corner strength in the money register, and the tendency after about 1/2 an hour of playing for me was to fall into that tub and begin to drown. High and low. No more. I played a very hard rehearsal and several days later an equally hard two sets with a Gil Evans-influenced composer recently (Josh Shneider...the real deal) , and had almost no time to prepare for either because I was busy playing a couple of different tenors. When I was playing either 1 1/2G or bathtub-type m'pces I would have gotten the embouchure yips in the low range before 15 minutes had passed if I had no practice time to prepare in the days prior to the gigs. Now? No yips and plenty of sound as well. Nice, strong low range attacks when necessary, too.

Doublers do it differently, I guess.

Later...

Sam

That's a very good observation Sam, and I agree with it. I generally recommend something a little bigger for doublers for the reasons you say.
It's an odd thing that with a bigger mouthpiece there seems to be 'more space' between the notes... it has always been a problem for me with 1 1/2G size stuff that especially in the high register, the notes feel too close to each other... this Elliott is the first 'small' mouthpiece where I get a feeling of space, and still get the sound I want. The Greg Black 1 3/8G gave me the space but I lost the sound that I wanted.
I remember using a Reynolds L a few years back and finding the effect you describe... even as a full time bassboner. For me that rim is too round... I do prefer a flatter rim with a well-defined inner edge... and that is rare in modern bass mouthpieces.
Chris Stearn

ttf_The Bone Ranger · Post by **ttf_The Bone Ranger** » Sat Dec 11, 2010 2:56 am

Quote from: blast on Dec 11, 2010, 02:34AMIt's an odd thing that with a bigger mouthpiece there seems to be 'more space' between the notes... it has always been a problem for me with 1 1/2G size stuff that especially in the high register, the notes feel too close to each other...
I'm glad I'm not the only one who has noticed this phenomenom. Feeling 'secure' on a bigger rim, in that range in particular, allows me to be free to attack notes without hesitation. I've always been able to make the low range work on almost anything, but have been quite amazed at how the high range has opened up on bigger rims over the years.

Quote from: blast on Dec 11, 2010, 02:34AMI remember using a Reynolds L a few years back and finding the effect you describe... even as a full time bassboner. For me that rim is too round... I do prefer a flatter rim with a well-defined inner edge... and that is rare in modern bass mouthpieces.
I'm beginning to think that this may be the main reason I like the Laskey 93D so much. The inner rim is well defined, and you can really feel exactly where it is, and it makes attacks feel very secure. I gave a Greg Black 1G a test run for a few weeks, and as much as I enjoyed the sound, I missed the security of the Laskey's flat rim.

Thanks again for posting your thoughts. It's interesting to read how your own thoughts on the subject have evolved over the years, and how you've been willing to change your mind on the subject. It makes me feel better about how I've approached equipment over the years, and done the occasional u-turn.

Andrew

ttf_blast · Post by **ttf_blast** » Sat Dec 11, 2010 4:32 am

Quote from: The Bone Ranger on Dec 11, 2010, 02:56AMI'm glad I'm not the only one who has noticed this phenomenom. Feeling 'secure' on a bigger rim, in that range in particular, allows me to be free to attack notes without hesitation. I've always been able to make the low range work on almost anything, but have been quite amazed at how the high range has opened up on bigger rims over the years.

I'm beginning to think that this may be the main reason I like the Laskey 93D so much. The inner rim is well defined, and you can really feel exactly where it is, and it makes attacks feel very secure. I gave a Greg Black 1G a test run for a few weeks, and as much as I enjoyed the sound, I missed the security of the Laskey's flat rim.

Thanks again for posting your thoughts. It's interesting to read how your own thoughts on the subject have evolved over the years, and how you've been willing to change your mind on the subject. It makes me feel better about how I've approached equipment over the years, and done the occasional u-turn.

Andrew

Well Andrew, it's not so much a change of mind... more a constant search for a mouthpiece that fits my face AND sound concept. I have been trying to use the 2G/1 1/2G size since 1984... on and off... I even had a Mt Vernon 2G with a Schilke 60 type rim at one time.... it's more traditional than the Schilke 60... but it wasn't a Mt Vernon 2G any more.
I think what has happened in the end is that I have found how to get the fine airflow balance that is needed to make a smaller mouthpiece work down low and that has allowed me to work on Mt Vernon 1 1/2G mouthpieces, but being greedy, I have still been looking for tools that do the job better.
If I didn't play for a living, I doubt that I would have bothered looking beyond the old Bach, but when your income relies on playing results, you tend to always be on the lookout for something that does the job that little bit better. Better for a pro is not necessarily better for everybody else... we tend to value safety, especially at extremes of playing that many people never have to bother with.

Chris Stearn

ttf_JimR · Post by **ttf_JimR** » Sat Dec 11, 2010 8:18 am

Quote from: Doug Elliott on Dec 09, 2010, 10:32PMJim, I'm pretty sure you and Chris are different embouchure types. A 1-1/2G is a hair too big for you, and a little too small for Chris's ideal size. You can both make it work, but that particular size is not perfect for either of you. That is one of the reasons that people sometimes find the "magic" Mt Vernon (or other) mouthpiece that seems to work better. ...

Doug,
You bring up a point I have often wondered about (in bold above quote). I have found through working with you that I play much better on my 3B on a larger tenor rim (XT103 E3). However, I practice and play primarily bass and double on tenor when needed. When I double tenor I usually need to play lead in a jazz band - the wider rim just plain works for me and also allows me to "switch" horns without a lot of problems.

On bass, I clearly play better and get that classic sound with a smaller rim size (SB107) on bass.

Question. Have you found any correlation between mouthpiece rim size on bass and embouchure type like you have on tenor? I was mildly surprised that what worked for me on tenor (i.e., much bigger tenor rim) seems to haved reversed itself on bass (i.e., smaller bass rim).

Thanks as always.
Jim

ttf_Doug Elliott · Post by **ttf_Doug Elliott** » Sat Dec 11, 2010 9:02 am

I think there would be a correlation, but I don't see it as much in people's choices.

ttf_fluor · Post by **ttf_fluor** » Sat Dec 11, 2010 9:40 am

Doug, when we're talking about that, out of curiosity, do many play bass and tenor on the same rim?
Especially on tenor rim sizes, 102, 103 etc (but obv. with e deep cup)

I think I read once James Markey won the NYphil audition on a 4Grim with a deep cup, and changed to a "real" bass mouthpiece afterwards...

ttf_abuczek1 · Post by **ttf_abuczek1** » Sat Dec 11, 2010 11:37 am

I'm currently playing on a .5 Griego. Before playing bass trombone, I was a tuba player for a number of years, so the mouthpiece i'm on dosen't feel that large (although I have been told otherwise.) I guess the right mouthpiece size for anyone is completely dependent on what they feel comfortable on, and get the best quality sound out of. For some, that just may be the 1 1/2.

ttf_savio · Post by **ttf_savio** » Sun Dec 12, 2010 3:52 am

Quote from: boneagain on Dec 10, 2010, 05:59PMJohn,

I second your opinion that, "..."

From what I've seen, there HAVE been "fashion show" modifications to the 1 1/2G, but I think the folks I named plus several others have modified things to work better for certain folks under certain conditions. This seems to allow folks who desire the "1 1/2G sound" (THERE'S a whole thread of its own!) to get it under conditions not conducive to getting the sound on the original family of Bach variants.

Regarding mouthpiece matching, I KNOW the designer of the Duo Gravis had the 1 1/2G firmly in mind for that horn.

You know, with the delicate balance of player<->mouthpiece, and mouthpiece<->horn, and player<->horn via the mouthpiece, it's a wonder ANY of this works at all! Perhaps in that context we could say, not only is the 1 1/2G NOT obsolete, but is a TRUE classic.

Its interesting all what you say Dave. Fashion Show, yes maybe. But I still feel some of this makers, (not all) make more attention in their work to the bigger ones. Some, like Laskey, don't even make them.

Some use the word "classic" or "vintage" but for me its just the sound I want. For me its "modern". And since many use this sound approach in all kind of settings, its still modern for me.

Sound approach is what all this is about, eh? What mouthpiece is a personal case. Of course different for all. The approach we have is maybe what is common. Don't you agree? Vintage, classic? yes maybe but as Dave say, still modern in a way. Why? because it seems to me that many players seems to go back or go closer to the 1 1/2g sound approach again after the period in 80-90 where "big" and "tubby" was the words.

About the more modern mouthpiece makers, my experience is to try them. They are there right in front of our nose. The good Bach 1 1/2g for you(me), is maybe out there somewhere but I think it can take a lot of time and energy to find it. My experience is the modern makers make more "safe" mouthpieces. And my believe is "safety" counts for all.

Leif

ttf_boneagain · Post by **ttf_boneagain** » Sun Dec 12, 2010 6:23 am

Leif,

I agree that "the play's the thing," (or sound of the playing, in this case.) I was applying "classic" to the mouthpiece design. More particularly, I was applying "classic" to the particular set of compromises in the 1 1/2G. EVERY aspect of the horn-player MUST be compromised for the entire system to work together synergetically. That is where I see the "safety" factor mention by you and Chris coming in. In what way do we need to make ourselves "safe?" The answer to that question has as much variety as our concepts of sound. When I made a living at this, "safe" meant the system allowed me to be as consistent as possible with the least extra energy to do that. It did not matter to me if I could get "an incredible sound" one time out of ten. I would get, or lose, jobs based on the other nine times. In a nutshell, that's what really puts the "pros" head and shoulders above those of us not depending on playing to pay the rent. On my BEST day now, I almost sound as good as some of them, but they sound that way ALL THE TIME. So, maybe now my idea of "safe" is that if I am having a very good day, the mouthpiece will help me sound better than I have any right to sound, just that once. Or maybe my idea of "safe" is to be able to get close to the "modern" sound at moderate volumes, yet still be able to latch onto the "classic" big band bass sound when needed (both of which work for me with my current setup, but from what I hear not for many other folks.)

Thinking about where I applied the term "classic" I think it is important to acknowledge that the "vintage" of the equipment does NOT determine the "vintage" of the outcome. Much of the tooling for the great King jazz horns of the 50's and 60's was many decades old. It might be argued that, because the designers and makers had time to learn all the quirks of that old tooling, they could put more of their attention into changes in the horns. It might also be argued that understanding the nature of the quirks in that old tooling made that generation of designers and makers better prepared to make the most of the next generation of tooling. Consider how carefully someone like Doug uses his CNC equipment. CNC equipment on it's own does NOT guarantee ANY improvement in precision. It DOES guarantee that whatever you do will be repeated exactly according to the limitations of the setup and attention to detail. For example, if you set up to cut to 1/1000 of an inch, but neglect to recalibrate for 2/1000 of an inch wear on a cutting tool, you get garbage results. On the other hand, if you come from a background of constantly attending to those kinds of details by hand, CNC can leverage that attention to detail into "more and better."

That's my take on the classic 1 1/2G. IMHO if a player learns to make things happen on that mouthpiece, that player learns lessons useful for an entire playing career. One of those lessons could well be that the player would NOT be in his/her right mind to settle on a 1 1/2G. But that would be a well informed decision. The player would have specific objectives to overcome, and a pretty good reference to go back to and see if those objectives are really being met on the new dream mouthpiece.

So, it's the mouthpiece itself that gets my "classic" label. I do not mean it is right for everyone. I mean it is something that has stood the test of time, and is STILL much emulated by makers making meaningful improvements. I mean it is still a good reference to go back to when we start getting lost in mouthpiece hell. Yup, a classic.

ttf_svenlarsson · Post by **ttf_svenlarsson** » Sun Dec 12, 2010 7:02 am

Raymond Premru play as far as I know on a Bach 2G (correct me Chris?) I never heard him live; the recorded sound is absolutely beautiful.
Gerge Roberts played many years on a oversized 1 ½ G, maybe that is closer to 1 ¼ G ?.
Absolutely beautiful.
Charlie Vernon played Laskey 95. (may still do) Beautiful sound. Not classic?
I own a Bach 1 ½ G Mount Vernon that is good, (I can tell it is very good, but since I am allergic to the metal I dont use it. )
I have failed to find another piece in the same size that make me able to get the same result as that mouthpiece, and also I have tried lots of Bach 1 ½ G:s that suck for me.

Classic sound? One of the most classic sounds is Raymond on 2G.
Dont understand how he made it.

ttf_bonesmarsh · Post by **ttf_bonesmarsh** » Sun Dec 12, 2010 7:08 am

Dave, Boneagain, you have NAILED it. " Specific objectives to OVERCOME".. perfect. It applies to every horn and every mouthpiece. It applies to every player, every gig, every lousy soundman, every lousy hall, every lousy arrangement.

They say we play the horn, but we work the horn. Sometimes its work, and sometimes its work for decades.

My favourite book about music and specifically brass playing is " Zen and Japanese Culture" by Daisetz T. Suzuki, first printed in 1970. You can read and more importantly RE-read the chapters on Zen and Swordsmanship. It reveals the huge truth about the so-called "enlightenment" or satori, moments when everything comes together and something physical is now effortless. But, and this is a huge BUT... the moment of enlightenment comes after 25 years of constant practice. CONSTANT practice.
   A samurai works from sun up to sun down for 20 years with a sword. Then every sword is magic in his hands. One day the samurai wakes up and BOOM he gets it. He gets it. Enlightenment.

A short story from the book about trial by combat. The novice has to face a three day test. On day one he has to spend the whole day fighting repeatedly with a rotation of opponents from sun up to sun down with wooden swords. During the day he is pounded and beat to sh*t--- every mistake results in a whack by the wooden sword.
  He wakes up on the second day and is sore beyond belief. He fights all day. Again.
On day 3 he wakes up and wishes he were dead. Everything hurts. He is exhausted and beaten up repeatedly from two days of constant physical pounding.
  BUT.... at one point he gets to the space in his head where nothing matters anymore. He is pure animal. He can't remember a place in time where he did NOT hurt. Eventually he gets to the point where in a fight he raises the wooden sword above his head and he knows he will be dealt a potentially mortal blow, but, as the mock sword of the opponent would enter his body, he is prepared to deliver a down stroke of his own sword that will result in both of their deaths and a draw.

   He no longer fears death.

****

Same thing with a 1 1/2G. Spend 20 years learning how to do long tones to the double pedals and articulate the double pedals on it. Then every mouthpiece works for you.

And thats the problem with the modern trombonist. We were LUCKY in the 50's, 60's and 70's. We had to practice. The modern kid in an undergrad program, or worse --- high school, has access to the internet and this forum. If he can't produce the notes in the valve register he reaches for his credit card, or daddy's credit card, and tries to buy an answer.

Ed Kleinhammer had to sweat over a 1 1/2G. George Roberts had to sweat over a 1 1/2G. Guess what, kids, YOU have to sweat , too.

I love TTF. It keeps me practicing myself. But I practice the hardest when I read posts like : " Yeah, I've been practicing on my collection of Williams horns. I have trouble on low Eb. I never knew there is a trigger register. Which Williams has the easiest low register, or should I drop $5000 on something else rare? Anybody have a rarer Williams with a more forgiving low register? How about a rare Bach? Anybody have a spare rare horn to cough up for me to learn on?"

   Practice. Practice on a 1 1/2G. Boneagain , you've hit it on the head.

ttf_John Beers Jr. · Post by **ttf_John Beers Jr.** » Sun Dec 12, 2010 8:44 am

Quote from: boneagain on Dec 12, 2010, 06:23AM
That's my take on the classic 1 1/2G. IMHO if a player learns to make things happen on that mouthpiece, that player learns lessons useful for an entire playing career. One of those lessons could well be that the player would NOT be in his/her right mind to settle on a 1 1/2G. But that would be a well informed decision. The player would have specific objectives to overcome, and a pretty good reference to go back to and see if those objectives are really being met on the new dream mouthpiece.

This I think sums the whole thing up as well as possible for me. I'm a bass/tenor doubler, which even Chris says that he's as inclined as not to start on a mouthpiece slightly bigger than a Bach 1.5G and lo and behold- I'm using a mouthpiece slightly bigger than the Bach 1.5 (Stork BT1.5) which has been working... alright for me (I'm not thrilled with the piece, but I've yet to try anything that works better for me over a several-month playing trial).

Anyway, the problem I've had when reading this thread sometimes is the mythology that seems to be attaching itself to the Bach 1.5 size. "If you can play this size effectively, you're a better player than if you can't". "Well, it takes special technique to play it, but you know if you get that right, all will be well". "We tune the overtone series, so it's not recommended that you use the same Bach 1.5 for the Bb, F and D sides of the horn, please send 700 dollars for an additional 2 mouthpieces and continue practicing to figure out the special Mone^H^H^H^H Bach1.5 playing technique"

Not sure how to avoid this, and not sure what to do about it in retrospect, but I think we need to make the point that while a Schilke 63 in a dual-bore 10.5" bell inline-thayer Edwards is not the end-all be all of tromboning for every player... neither is a standard bass trombone (let's say Getzen 1052) with a Bach 1 1/2G ... and neither for that matter is a King 5B with a 3AL.

This thread has helped a huge number of players, I'm sure, who were playing on pieces far too large for them. But we need to remember, as Dave said, that the whole system has to work together.

Player->mouthpiece->horn->audience. And the mouthpiece is the most intimate interface between the trombonist and the rest of the system. So- make sure whatever you play works for you. After all... there's a whole lot of people, including the progenitor of this thread 'blast', that play Doug Elliott pieces because they just 'fit' better.

ttf_modelerdc · Post by **ttf_modelerdc** » Sun Dec 12, 2010 9:15 am

I first started playing bass bone when the Schilke 59 was the largest mouthpiece you could order in a music store, and the 60 was a custom item not yet in the catalogue. The largest Bach mouthpiece was the 1 1/2G.
The change from the 1 1/2G to the 60 was revolutionary. WE forget that the 60 was deeper than the F tuba mouthpieces provided by Miraphone and Alexander with their F tubas at that time. And almost as big in diameter. It was a big jump from the 1 1/2G to the 59 and a big jump from the 59 to the 60, and their wasn't anything else available (unless you were lucky enough to have a Minnick 1 1/2g oversize)
The 60 re-voiced the bass trombone. Almost no one in the US played Contrabass trombone, but with a 60 these parts could be played and came to be expected to be played on the regular bass bone with a broader sound and control than before. Even high school players of modest abilities found that they could belt out pedal Fs!
The best players for whom this large mpc was suited, were able to deal with the 60 and retain the focus to play soft and the maintain a good high register. But for many players the the easier low range came at the cost of no color to the sound in the midrange and a poor high range. The term "slide tuba" was coined to summarize the results. We've reached the point were discussions are held on this forum as to wether the bass trombone can even play the 3rd part to the Bizet farandole!
Tenor trombone players have learned to play alto and not to make is sound like a tenor, tuba players have learned to use F tubas and CC tubas, but over here in the US we want to re-voice the Bass bone as if it were a contra bass, after all that sounds great in trombone choir!!!!
An advantage of Elliotts mpc system is that one can use an evolutionary approach and choose a size that keeps the traditional qualities but better adapted for some players than the traditional limits of the 1 1/2G. Dougs Medium Wide rim is great for those that want one a little wider than Bach's trombone blank would allow. I like Doug's Wide rim. Not a cushion rim but one made with the same contour as Doug's regular trombone rims, but in bass size. I like the Elliott K cup for a more traditional sound, and the L cup for large orchestra, which is the deepest cup that works for me for general playing. Large and small are different for different players, but my Elliott code for bass bone is 112W K9 and L9
I think the real value of this thread has not been really about equipment, but about the voicing of the the bass trombone, all too often forgotten in the equipment wars.

ttf_bonesmarsh · Post by **ttf_bonesmarsh** » Sun Dec 12, 2010 9:56 am

So true.

And if you wanted a Schilke mouthpiece you usually had to get the snail mail address from a gear head trumpet player, SEND by mail for a catalogue from Chicago, then order it, after buying a money order to pay for it. And then wait. Or phone. And if you phoned you had to call directory information and talk to a LOCAL operator there with an outrageous inner Chicago accent.

A Schilke 60 was an ADVENTURE !!! And we did it because Ed Kleinhammer had one made. But, Ed did it after he'd spent 30 years sitting in the Chicago Symphony Orchestra honing his chops and his craft. I didn't take us 30 years in 1980 to get one. It took us more than 30 days, likely. Now a kid does it in 30 SECONDS.

And they do it without " adult" supervision.It doesn't bother me when I read on the boards about kids buying huge gear. Its more money for me down the road when, like cockroaches, only the older geezers will still be playing. I'm not 50 yet. But, I've seen dozens of local kids go through the music school here and quit playing. Lost generations. No role models for new players. No future for no players when generations of players are lost. But-- thats to be expected when college aged kids go out post-school and find out that it takes 4 hours a day to maintain -- or ALMOST maintain-- chops on huge equipment. They just plain quit.

****
I've already seen the results of the modern way where with a credit card you can buy ANYTHING on the planet at a moments notice. Case in point--- a Griego Alessi mouthpiece ( I think)-- someone asked on the boards here a day ago where it was. None in production for retail distribution YET. But the players here are lined up to buy 'n try.

ttf_anonymous · Post by **ttf_anonymous** » Sun Dec 12, 2010 2:39 pm

This is a strange topic. A friend of mine recently switched to a LOUD mouthpiece after playing the yeo for awhile and he loves it. he has no problem controlling his sound on the LOUD mouthpiece which is huge, BIGGER than the Bach 1 1/2. He can switch between playing that huge bass mouthpiece and his peashooter jazz horn in a minute with no difficulty. Personally i think people put much too much emphasis on their equipment. I can play just as high and low on my 36BO with a 6 1/2al as i can with my edwards dual bore tenor with a 5g. The difference is in the ease at which I can play. It all comes down to preference and what works for you.

ttf_Torobone · Post by **ttf_Torobone** » Sun Dec 12, 2010 4:14 pm

Quote from: Npowloski on Dec 12, 2010, 02:39PMThis is a strange topic. A friend of mine recently switched to a LOUD mouthpiece after playing the yeo for awhile and he loves it. he has no problem controlling his sound on the LOUD mouthpiece which is huge, BIGGER than the Bach 1 1/2. He can switch between playing that huge bass mouthpiece and his peashooter jazz horn in a minute with no difficulty. Personally i think people put much too much emphasis on their equipment. I can play just as high and low on my 36BO with a 6 1/2al as i can with my edwards dual bore tenor with a 5g. The difference is in the ease at which I can play. It all comes down to preference and what works for you.

It is 62 pages long!

We have discussed the importance of the Bach 1 1/2G, and how they differ. And they do.

I was given a (relatively ruined) MV 1 1/2G in about 1976. It had been reamed out to a monstrous throat as an experiment. I later traded it for something more playable.

I bought a new 1 1/2G in 1990, and it seemed less deep, and the rim was wider. Looking back, it was significantly different from the MV. It newer version never satisfied me, but I'm pretty sure the original, unmodified MP would have been much better.

So, is a 1 1/2G a 1 1/2G? I think yours is better than mine.

ttf_savio · Post by **ttf_savio** » Thu Dec 16, 2010 1:59 pm

Quote from: Torobone on Dec 12, 2010, 04:14PMIt is 62 pages long!

We have discussed the importance of the Bach 1 1/2G, and how they differ. And they do.

I was given a (relatively ruined) MV 1 1/2G in about 1976. It had been reamed out to a monstrous throat as an experiment. I later traded it for something more playable.

I bought a new 1 1/2G in 1990, and it seemed less deep, and the rim was wider. Looking back, it was significantly different from the MV. It newer version never satisfied me, but I'm pretty sure the original, unmodified MP would have been much better.

So, is a 1 1/2G a 1 1/2G? I think yours is better than mine.

I think its more the approach that's been the important thing. Approach to the role of bass trombone and bass trombone sound. In different settings. The choice is personal. The 1 1/2g is just another choice as Chris have told many times.

Leif

ttf_blast · Post by **ttf_blast** » Thu Dec 16, 2010 3:14 pm

Quote from: Npowloski on Dec 12, 2010, 02:39PMThis is a strange topic. A friend of mine recently switched to a LOUD mouthpiece after playing the yeo for awhile and he loves it. he has no problem controlling his sound on the LOUD mouthpiece which is huge, BIGGER than the Bach 1 1/2. He can switch between playing that huge bass mouthpiece and his peashooter jazz horn in a minute with no difficulty. Personally i think people put much too much emphasis on their equipment. I can play just as high and low on my 36BO with a 6 1/2al as i can with my edwards dual bore tenor with a 5g. The difference is in the ease at which I can play. It all comes down to preference and what works for you.

I'm sorry that you find the topic strange. I sorry that you don't seem to have read much of it, or understood some of the conceptual issues along with the physical considerations. Thanks for sharing your non-understanding.
I hope you get something out of this forum.

Chris Stearn.

ttf_Tobbe · Post by **ttf_Tobbe** » Fri Dec 17, 2010 3:24 am

Quote from: savio on Dec 16, 2010, 01:59PMI think its more the approach that's been the important thing. Approach to the role of bass trombone and bass trombone sound. In different settings. The choice is personal. The 1 1/2g is just another choice as Chris have told many times.

Leif

And that sound is not only available with that MP!
I play a Laskey 93D. I've often been told that my sound is like a tenor in the upper register and matches all the brass sound...
It's NOT a equipment issue... It's a concept of sound and ideal that's in your head...

ttf_Tobbe · Post by **ttf_Tobbe** » Fri Dec 17, 2010 3:36 am

Quote from: blast on Dec 16, 2010, 03:14PMI'm sorry that you find the topic strange. I sorry that you don't seem to have read much of it, or understood some of the conceptual issues along with the physical considerations. Thanks for sharing your non-understanding.
I hope you get something out of this forum.

Chris Stearn.

No new user can get a straight line of this long topic.
I'm sure not even the ones who have been there during this topics long journey can remember all of it.
I guess Npowloski have read enough to give his input...
I think it's not ok to waive his thoughts off and identify him as not to be able to understand...
It could be there somewhere?

It would have been better to cut it out in different directions after a while...

My opinion...

ttf_savio · Post by **ttf_savio** » Fri Dec 17, 2010 4:51 am

Quote from: Tobbe on Dec 17, 2010, 03:24AMAnd that sound is not only available with that MP!
I play a Laskey 93D. I've often been told that my sound is like a tenor in the upper register and matches all the brass sound...
It's NOT a equipment issue... It's a concept of sound and ideal that's in your head...

Yes, the approach is available no matter mouthpiece. The concept of sound is not for all to understand. And its a choice among others. Equipment? I didn't believe it and didn't want to believe it before I recorded it myself. Who can tell anybody what MP to play? Only your self. Or guiding from a teacher who see what you need. This tread is not about that.

The 1 1/2g is available from many makers today. And some even have many options in that size area. Laskey don't even make it. The funny thing is some never tried it, never will, and never will understand it. Still they speak and think they understand.

Leif

ttf_BGuttman · Post by **ttf_BGuttman** » Fri Dec 17, 2010 5:59 am

When I got my first 1 1/2 G (1963, and it was a Mount Vernon because that's where Bach was) it was considered a "mainstream bass trombone mouthpiece". Most of the new bass trombones came with them. A lot of the heavy hitter players used them.

What's happened over the intervening 45 years is that our concept of bass trombone mouthpieces has gone to tuba size. Bigger is better. But is it? We have recordings of people like Ray Premru on a 2G, and Allen Ostrander (NY Philharmonic) on the 1 1/2G. They sound fantastic.

Some of these large mouthpieces used today are too big for anybody but a gorilla or a well-trained set of lungs to fill. I still think a 1 1/2 G is a good introductory mouthpiece for bass trombone; and a permanent mouthpiece for an average amateur.

ttf_blast · Post by **ttf_blast** » Fri Dec 17, 2010 6:18 am

Quote from: Tobbe on Dec 17, 2010, 03:36AMNo new user can get a straight line of this long topic.
I'm sure not even the ones who have been there during this topics long journey can remember all of it.
I guess Npowloski have read enough to give his input...
I think it's not ok to waive his thoughts off and identify him as not to be able to understand...
It could be there somewhere?

It would have been better to cut it out in different directions after a while...

My opinion...

Sorry.... as I see it, the poster has not grasped what this topic is about in any way, whichever bits of it he/she has read. Nobody is saying that it is hard to play large equipment and lots of people can play high, low and in between on all manner of large mouthpieces. We were talking about the chances of the Bach 1 1/2G still being a serious choice in 2010 as a bass trombone mouthpiece, and why it would be a serious choice.
It is true that it has been a long conversation that has touched on both sound and ease of use issues... but there is some pretty good stuff that has happened along the way that would be of benefit to many readers. It is a shame to dismiss 60 pages of thoughts and ideas.

Chris Stearn

ttf_octavposaune · Post by **ttf_octavposaune** » Fri Dec 17, 2010 6:37 am

Hi All,

For those of you who do not know I play wide rim MP's, but I have a megatone 1 1/2GM that I keep as a back up piece in my small bass's case (red brass 70H). I recently had the rim cut off by Doug Elliott and I use a 108W rim on it. I tried it recently with a back up rim (my new one is being plated) and that great sound was there (but with a better rim for me)!

I would agree that the 11/2G is a valid modern mouthpiece, I obviously like the heavier megatone series, but I own a Faxx 11/2G as a tester MP at work and it does fine for playing the extremeties of the playing registers.

Concept of sound and whether or not the rim fits your face is the only real issue with using this mouthpiece. I constantly regret selling my Mt Vernon 11/2G to a friend of mine for 50 bucks! Maybe some day I will get it back, who knows.

I too found Npolowski's post puzzling and failed to see the point. This thread isn't telling everyone to go out and get a 11/2G and play them, it is a discussion on the feasibility of using this mouthpiece in a modern day playing situation and not about what is categorically the best MP or any sort of absolute equipment choices.

I play something similar to a 11/2G on large bore tenor (SB 108W, SB I cup, I9) works for me, not for many other people. No I don't have a problem with the upper registers at all. Does that Elliott MP sound like a 11/2G, no it does not, but I like it! In fact I would not use an actual 11/2G for tenor work, that is why it is in my small bass case, it works really well for quiet literature and chamber ensemble work were full force playing is not required, especially on a small horn such as a non-Fuchs 70H. Nor does it sound like a tenor, but I have a bass trombone concept of sound so it doesn't matter what bass you stick in front of me (Bach 42 for that matter).

Benn

ttf_wgwbassbone · Post by **ttf_wgwbassbone** » Fri Dec 17, 2010 8:54 am

I still think a 1 1/2 G is a good introductory mouthpiece for bass trombone; and a permanent mouthpiece for an average amateur.
[/quote]

I'm not sure whether to be insulted or just to laugh and move on. But... Not only do I know many professional bass trombonists who use a 1 and 1/5 G I use one myself. Am I expecting everyone else to like it, no way. But to state that you believe that it's an introductory piece or one used by an average amateur is a statement made with any lack of real life bass trombone knowledge. There is more to the bass trombone world than Schilke 60 players with no lead pipes. I guess I could state that all huge bass trombone mouthpiece users have no clue and that only average amateurs use them but that would be ignorant on my part. I've heard some of the best bass trombonists of the world play on anything from a 2G to a small tea cup for a mouthpiece. And I've heard a lot of bad players play on the same. When do we finally realize that the player makes the equipment, not the other way around.

ttf_BGuttman · Post by **ttf_BGuttman** » Fri Dec 17, 2010 9:05 am

I only wanted to point out that like the 12C that we put young players on as a first mouthpiece, the 1 1/2G represents a good place to start. And much like many players continue using a 12C into highly successful professional careers the bass trombonist could continue with a 1 1/2G into a successful career.

I have my Mt Vernon 1 1/2G, and a Marcinkiewicz equivalent that I use pretty regularly. I like them when I need to have a "lighter" sound on my bass trombone. Otherwise I have a Doug Elliott setup that is just a bit larger than a Schilke 59.

It's just that I see so many of High Schoolers who think that anything smaller than a Schilke 60 isn't macho enough and then can't play them. I personally like mouthpieces smaller than the biggest thing you can find.

ttf_svenlarsson · Post by **ttf_svenlarsson** » Fri Dec 17, 2010 2:38 pm

The most important is the sound and playing ability, no matter what mpc you use to get there.

Nevertheless, yester rushing to get ready for the gig, late and in a hurry, where is my mouthpiece! I did put it somewhere for some reason, but I dont remember where!
I grabbed my Mount Vernon 1 ½ G and rushed of.
In second set I thought to my self hej man, do you sound good to night! Actually I did!

Used it today to. Nice.

Tomorrow I am going back to my G&W, I found it!

Of course there is a place for 1 ½ G in the professional world.
But some players use very big mouthpieces and sound fabulous on them.
Some student sound sad on Bach 1 ½ G, dont blame the mouthpiece.

ttf_Birdy · Post by **ttf_Birdy** » Fri Dec 17, 2010 4:16 pm

Quote from: svenlarsson on Dec 17, 2010, 02:38PMThe most important is the sound and playing ability, no matter what mpc you use to get there.

Nevertheless, yester rushing to get ready for the gig, late and in a hurry, where is my mouthpiece! I did put it somewhere for some reason, but I dont remember where!
I grabbed my Mount Vernon 1 ½ G and rushed of.
In second set I thought to my self hej man, do you sound good to night! Actually I did!

Used it today to. Nice.

Tomorrow I am going back to my G&W, I found it!

Of course there is a place for 1 ½ G in the professional world.
But some players use very big mouthpieces and sound fabulous on them.
Some student sound sad on Bach 1 ½ G, dont blame the mouthpiece.

As a matter of interest, what is it you prefer about the G & W?

I only ask as it sounds as though you were pleasantly surprised by the Bach, yet choose to go back to the G & W. I play on this size of mouthpiece (Rath 1.5 W) and may be missing out on something.....

ttf_blast · Post by **ttf_blast** » Sat Dec 18, 2010 12:34 am

Quote from: Birdy on Dec 17, 2010, 04:16PMAs a matter of interest, what is it you prefer about the G & W?

I only ask as it sounds as though you were pleasantly surprised by the Bach, yet choose to go back to the G & W. I play on this size of mouthpiece (Rath 1.5 W) and may be missing out on something.....

I suspect that you are missing nothing. You have gone back to that smaller size and I remember you posting that you were really pleased with it... so it works for you.
There will always be things that you have to work at on ANY mouthpiece. I have a G&W Chinook out on loan to a student at the moment.... it may work for him.... it will take a while to see.... first test is that he can still get the Bb above high Bb (yes, he is freaky). I also have an Adriano in the collection... that gives you that 'stainless' quality in the 1 1/2G+ size. Stainless steel has it's own sound, which either works for you, or it doesn't.
I will be interested to hear Svenne's take.

Chris Stearn

ttf_Birdy · Post by **ttf_Birdy** » Sat Dec 18, 2010 1:48 am

Quote from: blast on Dec 18, 2010, 12:34AMI suspect that you are missing nothing. You have gone back to that smaller size and I remember you posting that you were really pleased with it... so it works for you.
There will always be things that you have to work at on ANY mouthpiece. I have a G&W Chinook out on loan to a student at the moment.... it may work for him.... it will take a while to see.... first test is that he can still get the Bb above high Bb (yes, he is freaky). I also have an Adriano in the collection... that gives you that 'stainless' quality in the 1 1/2G+ size. Stainless steel has it's own sound, which either works for you, or it doesn't.
I will be interested to hear Svenne's take.

Chris Stearn

I certainly am really pleased with what I'm on now, and it's unlikely that I'll change unless my playing situation changes drastically. I may have missed something here, Svenne, is the G & W you refer to 1.5 sized? if not I've got the wrong end of the stick.....

ttf_svenlarsson · Post by **ttf_svenlarsson** » Sun Dec 19, 2010 2:47 am

Actually, I do prefer stainless because all silver coated mpc:s give me an itch on the lips.
The playing quality of the Mount Vernon 1 ½ G is very nice though, if I could get the same mouthpiece with a stainless rim I would really try it for some time.
The G&W I usually play on that horn is the Adriano. No itch. Working very good for me.
Its a tiny bit bigger then the 1 ½. For me the G&W projects in a good way, I fell like I can play very soft and still be heard. (That is what I think anyway).

I do have a bunch of later Bach 1 ½ G:s that I dont use, they are just not that good.
The back bore and rim is different.

Marcinkiewics made some very nice mpc:s that I used to play, but the itch. # 1 is a good slightly oversized 1 ½ piece that liked.

I do think the Mount Vernon piece will find its way back to my Bach 45 sometime.
I am afraid that gold coating will change the rim?

ttf_boneagain · Post by **ttf_boneagain** » Sun Dec 19, 2010 4:45 am

Have you tried the stainless "Kelly-berg" 1 1/2G size? It almost works for me. Currently my 2nd most favorite in the class. I wish it worked more like my Rath, because I'd like to not be concerned about WHEN I wear through the plating.

For the price it's a worthwhile investigation.

Quote from: svenlarsson on Dec 19, 2010, 02:47AMActually, I do prefer stainless because all silver coated mpc:s give me an itch on the lips.
The playing quality of the Mount Vernon 1 ½ G is very nice though, if I could get the same mouthpiece with a stainless rim I would really try it for some time.
The G&W I usually play on that horn is the Adriano. No itch. Working very good for me.
Its a tiny bit bigger then the 1 ½. For me the G&W projects in a good way, I fell like I can play very soft and still be heard. (That is what I think anyway).

I do have a bunch of later Bach 1 ½ G:s that I dont use, they are just not that good.
The back bore and rim is different.

Marcinkiewics made some very nice mpc:s that I used to play, but the itch. # 1 is a good slightly oversized 1 ½ piece that liked.

I do think the Mount Vernon piece will find its way back to my Bach 45 sometime.
I am afraid that gold coating will change the rim?

ttf_slidejj · Post by **ttf_slidejj** » Mon Dec 20, 2010 2:54 pm

Birdy, if you're playing a Rath 1.5W that's as good as it gets in the tenor width rim 1.5G specimens, at least IMO. I can't imagine looking for another piece in that size. However in the last 18 months or so I've learned I'm one of the embouchure types that needs to play a wider rim, first dialed it up on tenor to about a 3G size, and then realized I was constrained with the 1.5 rim. But I've also played tenor more than bass the last year or so where for a number of years I played mostly bass, other than a short time here and there where I played more tenor; so I think that has something to do with it too. What I'm playing now is a Ferguson Reynolds L (about 6 months) and it's working far better than I could have imagined. If I don't practice bass enough it's punishing until I pay my dues, but otherwise it just works. I couldn't stand the rim on the L and V that I tried in the past but this one I could tolerate from the beginning and am now fond of it. I played the toughest bass gig I've had in months (maybe all year) a couple of weeks ago and got all sorts of compliments about my sound. I wasn't sure I had my bass chops back but it worked. No way I could have played that low and loud on my Rath 1.5W; once upon a time yes, but not now with all the tenor playing I'm doing. What I like about the JRL is all the core, I have a compact sound inside the wideness. The other pieces I played with that wide a rim were too diffuse, so the core of this one was a pleasant surprise.

ttf_octavposaune · Post by **ttf_octavposaune** » Mon Dec 20, 2010 10:29 pm

Hi All,

Tenor width rim on a 11/2G? Have it threaded by Doug Elliott. Here are some pictures of my Megatone 11/2GM with a SB108W.

Benn

Sorry I double posted the first picture!!

ttf_savio · Post by **ttf_savio** » Tue Dec 21, 2010 1:53 pm

Quote from: svenlarsson on Dec 17, 2010, 02:38PMThe most important is the sound and playing ability, no matter what mpc you use to get there.

Nevertheless, yester rushing to get ready for the gig, late and in a hurry, where is my mouthpiece! I did put it somewhere for some reason, but I dont remember where!
I grabbed my Mount Vernon 1 ½ G and rushed of.
In second set I thought to my self hej man, do you sound good to night! Actually I did!

Used it today to. Nice.

Tomorrow I am going back to my G&W, I found it!

Of course there is a place for 1 ½ G in the professional world.
But some players use very big mouthpieces and sound fabulous on them.
Some student sound sad on Bach 1 ½ G, dont blame the mouthpiece.

Always good to see your wise words Svenne, and I agree so much. Good to see you say there still is a place for this size mouthpiece. I'm in love with it so I'm always very subjective. I'm little sorry for that sometimes. But we need some love for this size again and listen to Bob Huges, Ray Premru, George Roberts and those guys sometimes when we have a chance. (subjective again ) The reason is they did show us it works in any setting: Orchestra, ensemble and commersial settings.

Leif

ttf_octavposaune · Post by **ttf_octavposaune** » Tue Dec 21, 2010 9:08 pm

Hej Svenne,

Gold plating is So thin, that if the condition of the silver plate is good on your Mt Vernon 11/2G, then do not hesitate to have it plated. The coating is usually about .00003" thick, sorry I can't translate to metric. they call this a flash plating of gold. Very small and easy to take off with gentle buffing. The only problem with this is that gold is slippery, and maybe you will not like the feeling on your face!!

Are there no makers of stainless mouthpieces in europe that could make you a rim for a 11/2G to screw onto another 11/2g for a trial? I wouldn't do this to a Mt Vernon unless I knew what I was getting into.

Any one here compare a megatone to a Mt Vernon? I know that they have different backbores, but I also know Mt Vernons are heavier than later Elkhart 11/2gs. Do I have to get my MP back from my freind?

Benn

ttf_slidejj · Post by **ttf_slidejj** » Wed Dec 22, 2010 6:58 am

Multiply by 25.4 to convert inches to millimeters:

.00003" X 25.4 = .000762MM

FWIW, Goldchops.com states the gold plating to be .0002" which would be .005MM. If we take these as extremes anything in the range is probably an insignificant difference to the mouthpiece.

ttf_BGuttman · Post by **ttf_BGuttman** » Wed Dec 22, 2010 7:18 am

Quote from: slidejj on Dec 22, 2010, 06:58AMMultiply by 25.4 to convert inches to millimeters:

.00003" X 25.4 = .000762MM

FWIW, Goldchops.com states the gold plating to be .0002" which would be .005MM. If we take these as extremes anything in the range is probably an insignificant difference to the mouthpiece.

It's more conventional to talk about microns for this type of measurement. 25 microns is 1/1000 inch (also called a mil). In this case, the thickness of 0.00003" (often referred to as 30 microinches) is about .75 microns.

Typical gold plating thicknesses can range from 5 microinches (decorative only) to 100 microinches (older gold fingers on circuit boards may be this thick; now they are more in the 25 microinch area).

The actual value of the gold in a plated mouthpiece is about the same as the cost of putting it on, so hoarding a bunch of gold mouthpieces expecting to make a "killing" in the market is not going to happen.

These coatings are so thin that I'd really be surprised if anybody noticed an effect from them (other than the "slipperiness" associated with a good gold plate).

ttf_blast · Post by **ttf_blast** » Wed Dec 22, 2010 8:01 am

Just for information, I tried a G&W Adriano out on a concert last Sunday. A very heavy blow was easy on it. I found that it speaks VERY quickly, has a clear sound that really projects. Stainless seems to given a less complex sound... perhaps fewer overtones... dark but clear.. basically, it sounds different to brass... not better or worse, just different. Just my take.

Chris Stearn

ttf_Doug Elliott · Post by **ttf_Doug Elliott** » Wed Dec 22, 2010 10:00 am

There you go comparing two completely different mouthpieces and attributing everything to only one difference, the material... you should know better.

Maybe that's true... but maybe not.

ttf_sabutin · Post by **ttf_sabutin** » Wed Dec 22, 2010 10:24 am

Quote from: Doug Elliott on Dec 22, 2010, 10:00AMThere you go comparing two completely different mouthpieces and attributing everything to only one difference, the material... you should know better.

Maybe that's true... but maybe not.

Maybe he does "know better", Doug. I get the exact same results on every stainless steel m'pce I play. No matter...blindfolded, in a line with similar m'pces, on the third set of a hard gig...

QuoteA very heavy blow was easy on it. I found that it speaks VERY quickly, has a clear sound that really projects. Stainless seems to given a less complex sound... perhaps fewer overtones... dark but clear.. basically, it sounds different to brass... not better or worse, just different. Just my take.
Couldn't have said it better myself. The "less complex sound" sums it up as far as I am concerned, and that's why I never even given one a three week trial. I'm looking for a more complex sound, myself, and I'm willing to have to work for it if necessary.

Now maybe Chris comes into the situation already feeling that about stainless m'pces...I don't want to put words in his mouth. But however he arrived at it, his results jibe with mine completely.

S.

ttf_Gabe Langfur · Post by **ttf_Gabe Langfur** » Wed Dec 22, 2010 10:35 am

Quote from: sabutin on Dec 22, 2010, 10:24AMMaybe he does "know better", Doug. I get the exact same results on every stainless steel m'pce I play. No matter...blindfolded, in a line with similar m'pces, on the third set of a hard gig...

Me 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 · Post by **ttf_sabutin** » Wed Dec 22, 2010 10:54 am

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.

Yup.

S.

ttf_blast · Post by **ttf_blast** » Wed Dec 22, 2010 11:08 am

I was only offering a perspective based on comparatively little experience Doug. I did try a G&W Mark 1 for a couple of months two years ago, I blew a Chinook for no more than a few minutes in the orchestra... then the Adriano last week.
I feel my observations, as Sam said, held good for all those mouthpieces.
I am sure that they will work well for some players, but I think you need to embrace a whole different set of qualities such as Gabe referred to.
Of course you cannot separate the design from the material... though of the three I have tried, two seemed to work as mouthpieces and one did not... at least for me... but there were consistent qualities that seemed to me to connect to the Stainless Steel. It would be interesting to try the Titanium version of one of those just to see if that made a difference.
As with particular makes of instrument, if that sound quality became popular, many people would gravitate to it.
Personally, I really don't know what to think about it. I listened to my student playing the Chinook and found it quite exciting... but I wondered if it was interesting.... interesting has more staying power than exciting for me, and I did find his Ferguson L more interesting.... however, if they produce solid and more consistent results for people, that might give them an edge. You may get 'interesting' as you work on it.
To try and steer back to the 1 1/2G element here, has anybody tried the Kellyburg Stainless 1 1/2G ???

Chris Stearn