TromboneChat

are bigger mouthpieces a passing fad?

its been the majority of pros for a lot of years.

It's a passing "taste".  For a while the symphony guys were being told to be "bigger" so they went to bigger horns and bigger mouthpieces.

Now the symphony guys are being asked to play like trombones again.  You'll see more 1st players on Bach 36s and the bass players using something less than a toilet bowl.

The kids, who worship the great players but don't practice as much as they do, all go for the big mouthpieces and discover that they can't play all the parts because the mouthpiece is too big for them.

I'm playing the Franck Symphony in d this concert and I'm covering Bass.  The part doesn't even have a trigger note to speak of, and goes to A:  in a spot where it sorta sneaks up on you.  If you can't nail the A from nowhere, you are going to fail.  No doubt Charlie Vernon can play it on a 60-sized piece, but for us mortals a smaller mouthpiece is more appropriate.

Quote from: pazuni on Sep 22, 2007, 01:06PMDoes filling a bigger mouthpiece make a larger sound than filling a smaller mouthpiece?  I'm not sure it does.  A different sound perhaps.
Different in what way though? Surely we can't get a bass trombone tone out of a 6 1/2AL.

Quote from: BGuttman on Sep 22, 2007, 02:29PMI'm playing the Franck Symphony in d this concert and I'm covering Bass.  The part doesn't even have a trigger note to speak of, and goes to A:  in a spot where it sorta sneaks up on you.  If you can't nail the A from nowhere, you are going to fail.  No doubt Charlie Vernon can play it on a 60-sized piece, but for us mortals a smaller mouthpiece is more appropriate.


I can pick an   out of the air with no problem at all. As a matter of fact, I can pick a   out of the air with little effort. I have been doing a lot of work out of Charlie's Singing Trombone book. One of the exercises that he does is, starting on   , you play a long tone note trying to get it to match the sound in your head. You rest and repeat the note, seeing if you can get even closer to the sound in your head. The pattern you use is a 1/2 step down and up away from the   to the limits of your range.

I think the big mistake that is sometimes made is not judging your playing based on how you sound. "Is it my best sound?" should be the determining factor in wether a mouthpiece or other piece of equipment is something you should use. I have been listening to my trombone solo Cd's while driving for the last two weeks; of course, all of the usual suspects of bass and tenor players. Some of the things that all have in common is clear, pure, focused sound. I do not know what mouthpiece they are playing on and I don't care. I am copying their sound characteristics not their equipment. If a player focus' on the sound they are making and being honest with themselves, they probably will go to smaller sized equipment. However, it is also a mistake to think that all players on large equipment can't control it etc. because "I can't". It really is making the same error, just in the other direction . Focus on what you sound like, be honest with yourself and have your sound pick your equipment.

Quote from: CRWV on Sep 22, 2007, 02:06PMare bigger mouthpieces a passing fad?

its been the majority of pros for a lot of years.

In the US perhaps... worldwide, no.
A lot of years ? What constitutes a lot tends to change with age  My perspective many be different.

I sense that some people might get to be getting heated about this... let's not go there... it's only mouthpieces guys.
Any talk about what you can and cannot do on bigger and smaller mouthpieces in terms of range and note getting ability is not really the interesting point of this discussion... it's primarily about sound quality.
Look, I've played professionally for more than 15 years of my career on a Schilke 60 and bigger.. probably more like 20 years if I think about it. High and low have not changed. I still sound more like me than anybody or anything else... I just think I like me better on a Bach 1 1/2G than a Schilke 60, and I am interested to find out if I am travelling a lone path. There are people on this forum who play very big mouthpieces and make a glorious sound.. which is fine.

Quote from: pazuni on Sep 22, 2007, 01:06PMDoes filling a bigger mouthpiece make a larger sound than filling a smaller mouthpiece?  I'm not sure it does.  A different sound perhaps.

Beware of passing fads.

Rick
''
I know what Rick is getting at here, and 'different' is the term I would use as well. Bigger isn't really bigger if there is a hole in the middle of the sound... and that often happens... especially in inexperienced hands. Rick also said that equipment won't make you more musical, just more comfortable.. HOW TRUE.. but that is why the professional is so interested in these small details... we need every inch of comfort as our livelyhoods are at times fragile things.
Overall,as professionals, we are probably wise to follow the advice that most of us give our students... find decent equipment and stick with it... and work your butt off.
Look around and see what I mean.
Chris Stearn.

I never said bigger mouthpieces are a passing fad, I just said beware of passing fads.  I have nothing against mouthpieces of any size imaginable -- it is just a tool, although I do think some people play mouthpieces that are too large.  Musicians, like anyone else, need to make good decisions on what tools they use, and what's popular today may be not be tomorrow, just like shoes and shirts.  Passing fads will not help as much as being intelligent about things and trusting one's musical instincts.

The equipment I use is a bit different than what seems to be most popular in my area, but I like it and so do others.  Developing one's own musical voice will probably include equipment decisions.  Plus -- and we've all heard it before -- you sound like you no matter what you play.

Chris -- I always found it a more difficult transition to go smaller than to go larger.  Did you find that too going from the 60 to the 1-1/2?

Rick

I didn't mean to get the bigger mouthpiece debate going again, it just seemed like a larger shift and progression than a trend, which would seemingly imply a shorter term ...thing... (i was wrestling all day, i'm tired)

i agree with you chris, i like my sound better on a 1.5 than a 1G/60 or bigger.

interestingly, i think your onto something about going smaller being more challenging. its taken 2-3 months to get anywhere near comfortable on a 1.5, yet it took me no time to get comfy on a lasky 95 (from a hammond 21BL)

Yes Rick, it's far harder to go smaller than to go larger... I've always found that.
When you go bigger there seem to be all sorts of instant rewards... your sound seems bigger, your low register seems fuller and easier, you seem to have more control... but all these things are largely an illusion that disappears as the embouchure adjusts to the new mouthpiece.
When you go smaller, your sound seems smaller and harder, your low register seems less easy and the whole instrument feels harder to control... all negatives.. so going smaller really needs a lot of faith in the early stages.
Also... smaller is not for everyone, but nor is larger.. and I would say that if you removed fashion and peer pressure, far more players would get the results they want more easily on mouthpieces around the 1 1/2G size.... that's just from over thirty years observation of students and pros.

OK guys, here's a question I've wondered about for some time:

What is the origin of the Bach 1-1/2G?  When was it designated as such?  I've seen quite a few Mt. Vernon's, with at least 3 distinctly different blank shapes.  I've never seen one stamped New York, NY.  Anyone seen one, or have one?  I'll give you $20 for it!

The 1-1/2 is so close to the 2G in all ways except the rim, my theory is one day someone at Bach modified a 2G and voila, but that's just speculation.  I would like to know if anyone knows precisely when the 1-1/2G became an official size.  And who was behind its original development?

One of the 1-1/2G's that I have is stamped Mt.V. but the shape of the blank looks NY, NY.  I'm pretty sure the stock mpc for my 1953 NY 50B was the 2G.  Any new info would be of great interest.  Thanks,

Rick   

I don't many answers Rick, but I have seen the different blanks too. I can only assume that the heavy NY style blank was only made for a short time after the move. I know of a New York 1 1/2G, so they did exist.
Chris Stearn.

I'm interested in purchasing a MV 1 1/2G if anyone is interested in selling.  Contact me off list, please.

Ellrod

It's taken me 14 pages to get my first offer 
I'm not shedding yet, sorry... still collecting 
Chris Stearn.

After 14 pages, maybe I should be asking if anyone wants to sell me their Schilke 60.

I just happen to have one. How much are you willing to pay?

Blast wrote:
QuoteRick also said that equipment won't make you more musical, just more comfortable.. HOW TRUE.. but that is why the professional is so interested in these small details... we need every inch of comfort as our livelyhoods are at times fragile things. 

Well, well, well...After all the injuctions to make sound the top priority, and the admonitions that the best sounding mouthpiece isn't necessarily the most comfortable, comfort is getting its due. High time!

IMHO, no ideal sound is worth much if you can only get it for the first twenty minutes of a rehearsal or a performance, and then you are fried, or worse, injured. I have no quarrel with the idea that a mouthpiece might require more work in the beginning to produce a superior result in the end, nor with the notion that we need to work our tails off, whatever we play. But the mouthpiece (or leadpipe or whole horn) must allow us to do the work.

Following the 1 1/2G discussions on the Forum has led me to pull out my Mount Vernon 2G and 1 1/2G a number of times in practice sessions. I think I can say I understand the appeal of such vintage pieces for those who play them, even though I don't regularly play them myself (more on that in a moment). I have recommended the 1 1/2G to students.
In one case, a student and I went through the better part of my mouthpiece herd and mutually agreed that the MV 1 1/2G was what he sounded best on; not the biggest, or loudest, or most anything - except right. At the same time, I made sure to ask whether the mouthpiece was comfortable for him. If it hadn't been, I would have suggested going in a different direction. Since it was comfortable, however, I recommended a Faxx, which he seemed quite happy with.

All that said, why don't I play the 1 1/2G or the 2G myself? Quite simply, they seem to put the pressure points on the wrong parts of my face - more along the horizontal axis of my embouchure, more on the red part of the lip, rather than along the vertical axis, more nearly above and below the red of the lip. For me, that poses endurance issues that, so far, anyway, are a deal breaker.

Moreover, even though I agree that something in the 1 1/2G sound is lost, or at least changes, once the cup diameter passes a certain size, be it 27.5 mm or whatever, I find that when I play the 1G megatone I use most of the time and the 2G or the 1 1/2G one right after the other, I still recognize their respective sounds as all belonging to the same family.

All this leads me to wonder whether we might expand on something Sam said earlier in this thread:

Quote It is often said that form follows function. Well, in the hands of real craft masters, I believe that sometimes function follows form. That is, after working on great equipment for several decades they begin to know that what LOOKS AND FEELS right to their eyes and hands is quite likely to sound right as well.
I am inclined to think that if a mouthpiece doesn't feel right to the player, it probably doesn't sound right either. Put another way, if we find ourselves enamored of a sound we produce on a seriously uncomfortable mouthpiece, there may be something wrong with our concept of sound. It might be a perfectly fine concept for someone else, but not for us.

Ultimately, our "best sound" may not be the platonic ideal we carry around in our heads, but a compromise between that ideal and practical sustainability. This isn't necessarily a bad thing; the ways in which we idealize, or idolize, the sounds of our teachers or other players we admire may not be accurate, and serious discomfort may be a warning to that effect.

Dan Harris

All that sounds good to me.  I can't imagine a situation where there was a total dichotomy between comfort and sound; they must be functions of one another to one extent or another if for no other reason than because resonance means, at least to me, a certain relaxed vibration.  My only biases are toward size as it applies to me personally and sound in general.  I firmly believe in all sizes of mouthpieces for the right person although obviously some sizes have more followers than others.  At some point every brass player has to be sophisticated enough to make choices that work for him/her.

It's funny because there are also books with glossy illustrations of the "correct" embouchure and all that.  I've known some great players whose chops and equipment were very unorthodox.  Ultimately, as alluded to from the professional perspective, it comes down to product.

Rick

By the way, those of you who don't want to play on those nasty old Mt. V. 1-1/2G's should sell them to me for a nice price.  Say about $20? (I would put in a colorful smiley if I knew how.)

Rick

How did that smiley get in there?  I did a type in sideways smiley...
R

25$!! lol

ey Blast, I know a couple Mr. Washingtons that would like you to kindly part with those Mt. Vernons. lol


To be fair, I think any mouthpiece is going to be uncomfortable doing something. I mean, everything has to balance out, so if you adjust to make one thing easier, something else is going to get more difficult.

then again, theres physical comfort, and theres psychological comfort. Just because high C's don't hurt on a monster mouthpiece doesn't mean theyre comfortable; especially in front of an audience.

Dan... I read Rick's comment on comfort as a more all-embracing idea of comfort... not just physical feel.
I do, however, totally agree that if a rim is a poor fit for your dental/tissue structure, then it is a waste of time working on it.
The first 1 1/2G that I had as a student was just such a poor fit and I was never really comfortable on it even though I liked the tonal results.... luckily, there are many variations on the Bach 1 1/2G out there, and after years of experimenting I have come back to this size and found examples that work for me.
Chris Stearn.

Quote from: pazuni on Sep 23, 2007, 09:11PMHow did that smiley get in there?  I did a type in sideways smiley...
R

Some type-in smileys come out as the colorful ones you see while you are entering your info.
 : ) becomes
 ; ) becomes
 : ( becomes 
 : / becomes
 :- 0 becomes 
 : D becomes 
 :- P becomes 
 >- ( becomes 

(note that I had to insert a space to make the left side work)

We do have semi-intelligent smileys.

Thanks Bruce! 

Rck

Back to topic.  Did anybody offer you a Mt. Vernon 1 1/2G, Rick?

I like mine too much to offer it, even if I don't play it every day.

How does one tell a Mount Vernon Bach from all others?  I have two 1 1/2Gs I acquired in the early 70s, and they were used when I got them.

Quote from: blast on Sep 24, 2007, 02:22AMI do, however, totally agree that if a rim is a poor fit for your dental/tissue structure, then it is a waste of time working on it.
The first 1 1/2G that I had as a student was just such a poor fit and I was never really comfortable on it even though I liked the tonal results.... luckily, there are many variations on the Bach 1 1/2G out there, and after years of experimenting I have come back to this size and found examples that work for me.
Chris Stearn.

I had the same experience with a 1-1/2G years ago, it just didn't fit but I liked the sound.  So I moved to bigger pieces, mostly in the 1-1/4 range but wasn't completely satisfied with the sound.  This thread inspired me to find the 'right" 1-1/2 size piece for me, which I believe I've found now.

Quote from: gbedinger on Sep 25, 2007, 07:10AMHow does one tell a Mount Vernon Bach from all others?  I have two 1 1/2Gs I acquired in the early 70s, and they were used when I got them.

All mouthpieces made when Vincent Bach was in the Bronx will say "Vincent Bach, NY".
All mouthpieces made when Vincent Bach was in Mount Vernon, NY (just north of the Bronx) will say "Vincent Bach, Mt Vernon NY"
Mouthpieces made in Elkhart had different typestyles and you can approximately date them by the typeface.

If it doesn't say "Mt Vernon", it isn't a Mt. Vernon.

Bruce,

No one has offered me a MV 1-1/2G, but I was mostly joking.  I wouldn't expect to get one for $20 anyway.  I have a couple already, so it's not like I need one.  At some point though I would like to find a Bronx 2G since I believe that was the stock mouthpiece issued with my '53 50B.   

I understand that there was in fact a NY, NY 1-1/2G.  I've never seen one in person or in a picture.  Anyone have a picture?

Rick

"t's taken me 14 pages to get my first offer     
I'm not shedding yet, sorry... still collecting 
Chris Stearn."

Chris, I have read all the posts in this tread and I used many days to read all off them. You have gone from the biggest mouthpieces in this world to the 1 1/5. I read from all off your post that you suggest the 1 1/5. You already give me some good advices. You are a professinoally player with many years experience both in orchestra and enembles and as a teacher.

 I also read that you design some of the rath mouthpieces. I also find your answear very pedagogic but always with a kindly point to the 1 1/5G.

Why?

Quote from: savio on Oct 08, 2007, 10:44AM"t's taken me 14 pages to get my first offer     
I'm not shedding yet, sorry... still collecting 
Chris Stearn."

Chris, I have read all the posts in this tread and I used many days to read all off them. You have gone from the biggest mouthpieces in this world to the 1 1/5. I read from all off your post that you suggest the 1 1/5. You already give me some good advices. You are a professinoally player with many years experience both in orchestra and enembles and as a teacher.

 I also read that you design some of the rath mouthpieces. I also find your answear very pedagogic but always with a kindly point to the 1 1/5G.

Why?

'
Yes, I have been earning my living from the trombone for more than thirty years. If you click on the 'meet the staff' feature on the index page, you will see the sordid details of how I have done it.
I am not trying to push the Bach 1 1/2G onto anybody... remember, every face is different and people get great results from all kinds of mouthpiece. I started this thread because I felt that the 1 1/2G was all too often being dismissed by modern bass trombonists, when it is still one of the very best choices possible, especially if the player likes the more 'traditional' sound as opposed to the 'modern American' sound. Thank you so much for reading it all... it now has become almost book like in length, so it is no easy task. I have been impressed throughout by the quality of the debate... perhaps there are a few more pages to go.....

Chris Stearn.

Here is my completely unqualified theory... and this has probably already been stated.

The 1.5G was invented for the very early modern bass trombones, with one F attachment, and probably a smaller bore. It worked fine, just look at the 70H and whatnot. Then, why not? let's invent the double valve bass (again, apparently) for a little more flexibility. Problem is, now, with the little valves available, and the same bore, they are a lot harder to play with that bass mouthpiece from Bach. Therefore, why not get a lathe and bore all the possible metal out of Bach and Schilke's mouthpiece blanks? Now we have the 1G and the Schilke 60 (I would guess that the 60 is only bigger because they had a larger blank to start with) and now these dual valve monsters are easier to play (down low, at least, which is what matters, right?). The scene stays about the same for a couple decades. Then, wham, the Thayer and open wraps. You can still play the big modern monsters with Hagmanns, Thayers, maybe a couple CL2000s, but the instrument is now very free blowing, and the larger cup is harder to play, and in some cases, doesn't sound as good. Put a 1.5G in there, and now you have a more traditional bass trombone sound. I think it is all about balance. The old dual valve basses (like my Duo Gravis) almost require a larger MP to play well, and the modern bass can now be played with the mouthpiece originally designed for it.

I've been watching an Ebay auction for a MV 1 1/2G.  The final price - $255 - failed to meet the reserve.

I don't know what is more interesting - that someone would pay $255 for an old mpc or that someone wanted more money than that.

 

Quote from: Ellrod on Oct 14, 2007, 03:42PMI've been watching an Ebay auction for a MV 1 1/2G.  The final price - $255 - failed to meet the reserve.

I don't know what is more interesting - that someone would pay $255 for an old mpc or that someone wanted more money than that.

 

Especially when you consider that they all play so different. That could end up being an expensive paper weight

Call me crazy... without the reserve price I would have bought it -- maybe.  I assume the reserve was based on that one that went for over $400. 

Rick

Quote from: Ellrod on Oct 14, 2007, 03:42PMI've been watching an Ebay auction for a MV 1 1/2G.  The final price - $255 - failed to meet the reserve.

I don't know what is more interesting - that someone would pay $255 for an old mpc or that someone wanted more money than that.
hah! and people scream over monettes prices!

i was considering bidding...until it hit 100 after a day...sigh...

i'll just get a new griego or rath or something until i can afford toys.

Quote from: Burgerbob on Oct 14, 2007, 01:43PMHere is my completely unqualified theory... and this has probably already been stated.

The 1.5G was invented for the very early modern bass trombones, with one F attachment, and probably a smaller bore. It worked fine, just look at the 70H and whatnot. Then, why not? let's invent the double valve bass (again, apparently) for a little more flexibility. Problem is, now, with the little valves available, and the same bore, they are a lot harder to play with that bass mouthpiece from Bach. Therefore, why not get a lathe and bore all the possible metal out of Bach and Schilke's mouthpiece blanks? Now we have the 1G and the Schilke 60 (I would guess that the 60 is only bigger because they had a larger blank to start with) and now these dual valve monsters are easier to play (down low, at least, which is what matters, right?). The scene stays about the same for a couple decades. Then, wham, the Thayer and open wraps. You can still play the big modern monsters with Hagmanns, Thayers, maybe a couple CL2000s, but the instrument is now very free blowing, and the larger cup is harder to play, and in some cases, doesn't sound as good. Put a 1.5G in there, and now you have a more traditional bass trombone sound. I think it is all about balance. The old dual valve basses (like my Duo Gravis) almost require a larger MP to play well, and the modern bass can now be played with the mouthpiece originally designed for it.

I've been meaning to reply to this for a few days. You put together a nice logical picture... well done. I hate to be negative... but the progression has been much more complex than the one you outline. That said, you have some really good points... the stuffiness of traditional rotors and the larger mouthpiece as a solution is indeed attractive as a proposition.
Large bore basses (.562) have been around since the start of the 20th C. and two valves were applied to these basses from at least the 1920's (though not with operating linkage), but the mouthpiece size has been slower to grow. In the 1920's a bass mouthpiece would have been around the size of a modern Bach 5G or smaller. Bigger Bach 'pieces came in just pre WW2, though only up to 1 1/2G.
What were the big mouthpieces that evolved in the 60/70's designed for ?? Bigger sound, or more ability in the low register to cope with contemporary big band music ?? That is hard to answer, though the Klienhammer/ Schilke connection seems to have been an early driving force in big bass mouthpieces. In the UK it was very much the feeling for many years that anything bigger than a 1 1/2G would be too much of a struggle to play... perhaps that was felt in the US too, until a few pioneers showed that it was possible.
Once bigger mouthpieces were available large numbers of players rushed to populate this 'new frontier' with tales of instant low registers and ever bigger sounds. There were problems... sounds were not what people had been used to and instruments designed with smaller mouthpieces in mind had big intonation problems with the new monster mouthpieces. Gradually, ways round the problems were found, and instruments were designed with these larger mouthpieces in mind, until we reached the present situation, were a huge choice is available to the bass trombonist... instruments, valves and mouthpieces. All have their plus and minus points, which are only now being truly understood within a general context of bass trombone use.. and players are picking what works for them, both in terms of sound and physical ability, without so much concern about the 'latest gear'. Interesting times.
Chris Stearn.

I used a Giardinelli copy of a Schilke 59 in my Duo Gravis for many years, and then one day I tried a Marcinkiwicz George Roberts Model -- which is pretty darn close to a Bach 1 1/2G -- and now I wish I had found the Marcinkiwicz 20 years ago!  I now get the Bass Trombone sound I've been looking for, and it's a LOT easier to play.

After my last posting on this thread I quickly moved from the 1 1/2GM to the Yeo Signature because I didn't like the fact that I'd lost big, fat low Dbs and Cs. Up until about 2 months ago I made this mouthpiece work, albeit that I wasn't happy that a lot of my sound was getting lost between the sound of the Euph and the Tuba. Then my work circumstances changed, meaning that I couldn't get the instrument on my face every day anymore. The Yeo quickly became cumbersome in the stave register, which let's face it is where most of the stuff we're asked to play is based. I thought of this thread, and thought that the time is right to go back to the 1.5 again. I'm currently playing on the bach 1.5G megatone which has been lent to me to help me make a decision on where I go mouthpiece-wise. I asked my MD to have a special listen to my sound (BTW it's Andy Berryman of the Halle Orchestra) when I first tried the megatone a couple of weeks ago. He said that he felt that my sound had a lot more character to it, which to me means that I probably sound more like a trombone again instead of the dull sound I was getting in the stave register before.

A couple of issues are now coming to mind.

1) Blast- you wrote originally that you felt that the 1.5g was a finisher mouthpiece rather than a beginner one. It's taken me a long while to realise what you mean and you're right.

To explain- in the early days/weeks/months of playing Bass Trombone the low register seems really difficult. Then you move to a bathtub mouthpiece and all of a sudden you can get the lower notes. Now I'm finding that because my embochure is alot more trained at finding the lower register, when I go back to the smaller mouthpiece, it's alot easier to get the notes than it used to be. So, the point of all this ramble? 

I think that the bigger mouthpieces facilitate the lower register that much better that you need to know what the notes feel like on the chops. Then when you eventually go back to the smaller mouthpiece, the notes are still there because your embochure is trained to know where they are. Hence the fact that the 1.5 is a finisher rather than a starter mouthpiece.

I'm really getting hooked on the sound now, however, and this brings me onto the second point-

2) THe Bach 1.5G feels really uncomfortable with prolonged playing. What do the afficionados of the 1.5 sized mouthpiece suggest to make it more comfortable? Rath- wide or normal rim, Faxx? Kelly? anything else?

BTW- I've just remembered, our MD has arranged for the bone section to go to the Schilke factory whilst we are over in the USA the week after next for the US Open Band contest. Maybe the 'gobiron'(to quote a northern British term for a mouthpiece) of dreams will be there?

Opinions?

Quote from: Birdy on Oct 27, 2007, 06:06PMAfter my last posting on this thread I quickly moved from the 1 1/2GM to the Yeo Signature because I didn't like the fact that I'd lost big, fat low Dbs and Cs. Up until about 2 months ago I made this mouthpiece work, albeit that I wasn't happy that a lot of my sound was getting lost between the sound of the Euph and the Tuba. Then my work circumstances changed, meaning that I couldn't get the instrument on my face every day anymore. The Yeo quickly became cumbersome in the stave register, which let's face it is where most of the stuff we're asked to play is based. I thought of this thread, and thought that the time is right to go back to the 1.5 again. I'm currently playing on the bach 1.5G megatone which has been lent to me to help me make a decision on where I go mouthpiece-wise. I asked my MD to have a special listen to my sound (BTW it's Andy Berryman of the Halle Orchestra) when I first tried the megatone a couple of weeks ago. He said that he felt that my sound had a lot more character to it, which to me means that I probably sound more like a trombone again instead of the dull sound I was getting in the stave register before.

A couple of issues are now coming to mind.

1) Blast- you wrote originally that you felt that the 1.5g was a finisher mouthpiece rather than a beginner one. It's taken me a long while to realise what you mean and you're right.

To explain- in the early days/weeks/months of playing Bass Trombone the low register seems really difficult. Then you move to a bathtub mouthpiece and all of a sudden you can get the lower notes. Now I'm finding that because my embochure is alot more trained at finding the lower register, when I go back to the smaller mouthpiece, it's alot easier to get the notes than it used to be. So, the point of all this ramble? 

I think that the bigger mouthpieces facilitate the lower register that much better that you need to know what the notes feel like on the chops. Then when you eventually go back to the smaller mouthpiece, the notes are still there because your embochure is trained to know where they are. Hence the fact that the 1.5 is a finisher rather than a starter mouthpiece.

I'm really getting hooked on the sound now, however, and this brings me onto the second point-

2) THe Bach 1.5G feels really uncomfortable with prolonged playing. What do the afficionados of the 1.5 sized mouthpiece suggest to make it more comfortable? Rath- wide or normal rim, Faxx? Kelly? anything else?

BTW- I've just remembered, our MD has arranged for the bone section to go to the Schilke factory whilst we are over in the USA the week after next for the US Open Band contest. Maybe the 'gobiron'(to quote a northern British term for a mouthpiece) of dreams will be there?

Opinions?

Since it sounds like you are really getting into the sound a 1.5-size lets you get, you should at least give the Rath B1 1/2W  a whirl. Chris did a great job working up that one.  For ME it's the most comfortable bass-bone mouthpiece I've found.  Once you get over losing the sharp edges so many others have, this one really starts to grow on you.  Well, not really grow.... doesn't take root and all....  but I got acclimated quite quickly.  There are other fine MPs in the size that are more comfortable than the "original" but why not start closer to home, eh?

Quote from: boneagain on Oct 27, 2007, 06:41PMSince it sounds like you are really getting into the sound a 1.5-size lets you get, you should at least give the Rath B1 1/2W  a whirl. Chris did a great job working up that one.  For ME it's the most comfortable bass-bone mouthpiece I've found.  Once you get over losing the sharp edges so many others have, this one really starts to grow on you.  Well, not really grow.... doesn't take root and all....  but I got acclimated quite quickly.  There are other fine MPs in the size that are more comfortable than the "original" but why not start closer to home, eh?

Thanks, and it would be very much like starting at home, the Rath factory is about 4 miles from where I live!

From above:

2) The Bach 1.5G feels really uncomfortable with prolonged playing. What do the afficionados of the 1.5 sized mouthpiece suggest to make it more comfortable? Rath- wide or normal rim, Faxx? Kelly? anything else?

I agree with the recommendation to try the Rath 1-1/2W.  The longer I play mine the more I like it and I'm another that found the Bach uncomfortable. And if you live near Rath there's no reason not to stop by and check it out.

So I've bought the MV 1,5G Ellrod mentioned earlier. I must say I'm very happy with it. I have returned to the 1,5 sized mouthpieces earlier this year and have been trying a lot of different 1,5G sized moutpieces. The MV plays very comfortable and its characteristics suit me very well.

Ofcourse, these mouthpieces are expensive these days as they are very popular - partly due to the (very interesting) contribution of mr. Stearn  ? - , but hey for us europeans it's less expensive than a Thein mouthpiece for example (also a very good mouthpiece be the way and it's money well worth).

Quote from: Birdy on Oct 27, 2007, 06:06PMTo explain- in the early days/weeks/months of playing Bass Trombone the low register seems really difficult. Then you move to a bathtub mouthpiece and all of a sudden you can get the lower notes. Now I'm finding that because my embochure is alot more trained at finding the lower register, when I go back to the smaller mouthpiece, it's alot easier to get the notes than it used to be. So, the point of all this ramble? 

I think that the bigger mouthpieces facilitate the lower register that much better that you need to know what the notes feel like on the chops. Then when you eventually go back to the smaller mouthpiece, the notes are still there because your embochure is trained to know where they are. Hence the fact that the 1.5 is a finisher rather than a starter mouthpiece.
Kind of the opposite of the "typical" tenor trombone progression- from smaller (bringing the middle and upper registers into reach for young players) to larger.

Quote from: Dave Tatro on Nov 05, 2007, 09:59AMKind of the opposite of the "typical" tenor trombone progression- from smaller (bringing the middle and upper registers into reach for young players) to larger.

Well Dave, I don't think there is a typical tenor or bass trombone progression. Many factors affect the mouthpiece choices of individuals over the years... fashion and peer pressure being just two irrational influences, whilst careful selection and common sense may push in other directions.
Chris Stearn.

Quote from: blast on Nov 06, 2007, 02:58PMWell Dave, I don't think there is a typical tenor or bass trombone progression. Many factors affect the mouthpiece choices of individuals over the years... fashion and peer pressure being just two irrational influences, whilst careful selection and common sense may push in other directions.
Chris Stearn.

I agree, which is why I put "typical" in quotes. The previous poster had made a point about how some players are moving from larger bass bone pieces to smaller as their skills improve, almost likening the larger pieces to training wheels on a bicycle. As the players improve their skills, they no longer need the mega-mouthpieces to have facility down low. At least this was my interpretation of his point.

My point was that the opposite sometimes (often) tends to occur for young tenor players. They start on maybe a 12C, progress to a 6.5AL, and eventually end up on a 5G or larger size mouthpiece as the chops strengthen and the player physically grows. Of course this does not apply to everybody and is very situation and player specific. Looking back, I see that I did not qualify my previous statement with the word "young". My mistake.

Ultimately, every player should find their own best tools for the job independently of trends, fashions, etc....

Quote from: Dave Tatro on Nov 06, 2007, 06:49PMUltimately, every player should find their own best tools for the job independently of trends, fashions, etc....

I agree wholeheartedly, but I believe that's easier said than done.  It sometimes takes years to determine what size mouthpiece we're best suited for, and sound concept takes time to develop as well.  With all the variables it's no wonder that young players, and not so young, get tempted to go for the latest "gee-whiz" mouthpiece.

Quote from: slidejj on Nov 07, 2007, 01:45PMI agree wholeheartedly, but I believe that's easier said than done.  It sometimes takes years to determine what size mouthpiece we're best suited for, and sound concept takes time to develop as well.  With all the variables it's no wonder that young players, and not so young, get tempted to go for the latest "gee-whiz" mouthpiece.

Yes, much easier said than done. And who can say when it really is "done"? I don't think I will personally be "done" evolving as a player until my last note is played. There is always the possibility of something better out there in concept, technique, or equipment. Not to even get into the complex interrelationships between those things!

I have been reading this tread up and down mostly because I buyed an instrument where my old schilke 59 didnt work with me or my new horn anymore. And I found my yeo mouthpiece to demanding. Very interesting reading but all the time with an feeling of "not 1 1/2 for me, my size is 59 or bigger"

But still reading. Chris Stearn posts and all those who change to 1 1/2 is interesting reading for all trombonist hunting for a new mouthpiece. In my mouthpiece hunt I ordered a griego 1. I would never go for a 1 1/2 of course. To small.

I got a mouthpiece from Griego wich say "Griego 1" When I played it I felt it was a bit small. I got a repairman man to measure it and he told me this piece is 27,3 mm. My first thought was that this was not an griego 1 but a wrong numbering from griego. But Christan Griego told he had change the rim on this mouthpiece.

Anyway I did send it back because I wanted a bigger mouthpiece. Then I listen to some records I did with this mouthpiece. And was in shock when listen to it. Everything sounds better. Not so many mistakes, better legato, attack, and the sound was more, I dont know, more the bass trombone sound I like. Cant say it was like George Roberts ofcourse but I felt it was a bit closer.

I did beg the Griegos Company to get this mouthpiece back and they sent it back without any shipping pay from me. Thanks Griego and thanks for making this wonderful mouthpiece.

Its first time I recomand a mouthpiece for anybody but this mouthpiece is a must try for all bass trombone players hunting for a new piece.

And yes Chris Stern. A Bach 1 1/2 is not a bad piece at all. Thanks.


Leif

Hey Birdy, how did the trip to the Schilke factory turn out?  Did you see anything really interesting there?  Find maybe a Schilke 59 with a wide rim?  Curious minds want to know! 

Don't any of you worry about feeling silly when you find that smaller mouthpieces suit you better.....it's taken me YEARS to realise just that.... and that some trombones work better with smaller mouthpieces... again, years to grasp it.
There is a lot of bigger is always better 'logic' out there that sways opinion, even in the face of clear evidence. I kick myself for not having got the clues together sooner.
On the other side, there may be folks out there that should have been playing big stuff years ago and have only just realised.... we are all different.
Chris Stearn.

 
Im not a proff orchestra player but still have to play school concerts and Im happy I have the opportunityto play at all.


"Don't any of you worry about feeling silly when you find that smaller mouthpieces suit you better."


Thanks Chris


I found my teaching and playing better when go back to 27 mm size mouthpiece. I also read in this forum many proff already play it.

I always wonder why one of my teacher sound bigger than me. He plays an old holton and a denis wick 2 al. I have a bigger horn and a bigger mouthpiece.

I swithc back to smaller and have no bad feelings about it Cris.
Think I can make more music.Maybe not so many trippels pedals but my public never ask for it either.

Leif