Subject: TROMBONE-L Digest - 23 Feb 2003 to 24 Feb 2003 (#2003-55) Date: Tuesday, February 25, 2003 12:00 AM From: Automatic digest processor Reply-To: "Trombones and related issues forum." To: Recipients of TROMBONE-L digests There are 26 messages totalling 1188 lines in this issue. Topics of the day: 1. While we're on the topic of mouthpieces... (11) 2. OTJ Classifieds Update - 2/24/03 3. Idle tuning question (3) 4. mouthpiece mass (2) 5. children dancing, was RE: [TBN-L] Idle tuning question 6. Thank you! Was: Ricky Martin Chart 7. Black^Hill 0G 8. Big Mouthpiece / Small Horn (5) 9. Mouthpiece weights ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sun, 23 Feb 2003 23:33:19 -0700 From: James Scott Subject: Re: While we're on the topic of mouthpieces... Chris - I think they only did this with tuba mouthpieces, but Dillon's in New Jersey makes some mouthpieces out of bronze. They are the same profile as their regular mouthpieces, but are considerably heavier because of the added weight of the metal. Jim Scott Chris Dearth wrote: >Has anyone experimented with different materials? If so, to what effect. >Different brass mixtures (yellow brass vs. gold brass vs. rose brass). I >know Yamaha makes a Sterling Silver trumpet mouthpiece (now that is an >expensive one). I've also heard of others having their mouthpieces heat >treated. Since everybody got on the mouthpiece jag, I just had to ask. ;-) > >On an interesting side note, I remember seeing a mouthpiece Andrew >Glendenning did as a Winter Term project at Oberlin where he made a trombone >with a cup out of parafin to see if it would work (I know that's an >over-simplification of his project, but at least mostly right). I think >that will be my next mouthpiece; a Greg Black Heavy-Weight, Parafin Cup, 1 >1/2G rim with a 12C cup. Oughta be pretty sweet...(tongue firmly planted in >cheek) :-) > >Chris Dearth > > ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 24 Feb 2003 06:22:15 -0600 From: Chris Waage Subject: OTJ Classifieds Update - 2/24/03 The Online Trombone Journal Classifieds (http://www.trombone.org/classifieds) have been updated as of 6:21 AM CST on February 24, 2003. - - - - - Thank you for using the OTJ Classifieds! - - - - - OTJ Classifieds Frequently Asked Questions http://www.trombone.org/classifieds/faq.asp OTJ Gift Shoppe: http://www.cafepress.com/cp/store/store.aspx?storeid=trombones If you have any questions or comments about the Online Trombone Journal Classifieds, please contact me at chris@trombone.org. Chris Waage -- Chris Waage, Associate Webmaster The Online Trombone Journal "A Website for Trombonists" ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 24 Feb 2003 08:24:03 -0500 From: richardt@LEE.ARMY.MIL Subject: Idle tuning question I went to the local symphony concert last night. There was different instrumentation for every piece, so after each number a good number of musicians walked on or off, and they retuned. In each case they tuned to the oboist's A, and I guess I would be charitable in saying she appeared to be having some equipment difficulties. Her A sagged and drifted at least 20 cents, maybe 40, and I wouldn't have had a clue which one to tune to. I would bet she had in her pocket an electronic tuner that could produce a perfectly steady A on press of a button. Why not simply have the oboist hold up the tuner with the A playing? Why not have every orchestra start doing this? Tuning the group to an audible pitch seems to be far preferable (and faster) than tuning to a display on a tuner, but why not use the steadist possible pitch available? Okay, for extra credit I'll add a little anecdote. In the second half they were playing something written recently but trying to sound old, I was tired and hungry, they were frankly floundering a bit and didn't seem to like the piece that much, and my mind drifted off. I was somewhere else completely when I was rudely snapped to reality by a pre-schooler actually dancing in her seat in front of me and appearing to enjoy it immensely. Surprised that anyone would be enjoying this part, I started listening again, and - I liked it too. They were playing better and making sense, and I got something out of it as well. I'm just glad it was an enthusiastic child and not a cell phone. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 24 Feb 2003 09:21:59 -0500 From: richardt@LEE.ARMY.MIL Subject: mouthpiece mass I would tend to be closest to Chris Tune's ideas on this, but they suggest a couple of followup questions. The most reasonable case to be made for apparent effects of additional mass is that it affects the feedback available to the player. (the brass itself is really not involved much in making the wind column sound heard by the audience) Reasonable does not mean proven but no other credible explanations have emerged. Okay, but then what? The player must somehow use that feedback to do something different. Think of a standard engineering closed loop control, for example maintaining the supply air temperature from an air handler (something that blows warm air into your office in the winter). It has an input (the thermostat setting, say 80 F. unusual but possible). It has a sensor that measures discharge air temperature, might be reading 78 F. It computes an error, that would be 80 - 78 equals 2. Then it uses the error to "do something". In this case it would be to open the hot water valve wider and let more 180 F water into the coil. How much wider? Well that's where it gets complicated and control strategies get involved, PID loops, fuzzy logic sometimes, etc., but let's keep it simple. Basically "error = 2" means "open the valve a smidgen more. "Error = 20" means "open the valve a whole bunch more." "Error = 0" means "don't touch that!" In the trombone case, what is the "do something"? We take the premise that part of our feedback is from the sound in the room, part of it is the secondary feedback arriving from the bell, and we are using the bell feedback to compute our error (sound concept in head minus sound from bell equals error). It is possible of course that Chris is right and that we all sound pretty much alike. And the recognizable differences between players, except for anomalies like Joe Alessi on one end and strangled beginners on the other, are solely due to articulation and technique choices. And all the rest is imaginary at worst, or the result of feedback that we don't use for anything at best. But assuming it is not, the feedback loop model depends on the idea that we have a large ability to influence our tone regardless of equipment. (Can Joe Alessi play either very bright and brassy, or very dark and symphonic, on a beginner's Olds Ambassador? Probably so.) We don't have to know what we do physically to change the tone, we just need the ability to compare "tone in head" with "tone in ear" and compute the error, our brain does the rest. But then, what does it do? I can see two lines of speculation, those being what we put into the horn (the overtone content present in our buzz) and how the horn reacts (the relative response of the horn to the various overtones it receives from the buzz). It is not obvious to me how the lip/air combination can have a significant effect on the spectral content of the buzz. But it may be possible to get the same pitch with different combinations of tension, mass, and length. You certainly can on a guitar string and the vibration properties obviously change. Can you do that with the lips? I dunno. Thoughts? On the other hand, it is easy to see how you affect the horn response, by playing consistently above or below the pitch center. In fact, that may be the only way to actually affect the timbre produced. The buzz you insert into the horn has spectral content at overtones that line up numerically. the horn itself has maximum response at overtones that deviate somewhat from a mathematically ideal line up. Choosing to play high or low from pitch center probably allows you to select the overtones you want almost like using a graphic equalizer. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 24 Feb 2003 08:35:29 -0600 From: Jeff Albert Subject: children dancing, was RE: [TBN-L] Idle tuning question I am not going to touch the tuning thing, but the child dancing is a good story. It's amazing how children can do things to reopen our minds and ears. They haven't yet learned to suppress the simple joy of music, even poorly performed music. When I was in grad school, the big band from the university went to Brazil. We played a free concert at a music school in a very poor neighborhood. Poor like dirt floors, no windows or doors, just holes in the walls to walk through or look out of. We played in this little outdoor courtyard. There was a stage in the middle with just standing room on all sides of the stage, no chairs or anything. People from all over the neighborhood came in when they heard the music. The little kids, and even the teenagers were all dancing around to Duke Ellington's and Thad Jones' music. Seeing a 4 year old Brazilian kid dance to "Tip Toe" just changes the way you look at the world. Jeff Albert www.jeffalbert.com > -----Original Message----- > From: Trombones and related issues forum. [mailto:TROMBONE- > L@PO.MISSOURI.EDU] On Behalf Of richardt@LEE.ARMY.MIL > Sent: Monday, February 24, 2003 7:24 AM > To: TROMBONE-L@PO.MISSOURI.EDU > Subject: [TBN-L] Idle tuning question > > I went to the local symphony concert last night. There was different > instrumentation for every piece, so after each number a good number of > musicians walked on or off, and they retuned. In each case they tuned to > the oboist's A, and I guess I would be charitable in saying she appeared > to > be having some equipment difficulties. Her A sagged and drifted at least > 20 > cents, maybe 40, and I wouldn't have had a clue which one to tune to. I > would bet she had in her pocket an electronic tuner that could produce a > perfectly steady A on press of a button. Why not simply have the oboist > hold up the tuner with the A playing? Why not have every orchestra start > doing this? Tuning the group to an audible pitch seems to be far > preferable > (and faster) than tuning to a display on a tuner, but why not use the > steadist possible pitch available? > > Okay, for extra credit I'll add a little anecdote. In the second half > they > were playing something written recently but trying to sound old, I was > tired > and hungry, they were frankly floundering a bit and didn't seem to like > the > piece that much, and my mind drifted off. I was somewhere else completely > when I was rudely snapped to reality by a pre-schooler actually dancing in > her seat in front of me and appearing to enjoy it immensely. Surprised > that > anyone would be enjoying this part, I started listening again, and - I > liked > it too. They were playing better and making sense, and I got something > out > of it as well. I'm just glad it was an enthusiastic child and not a cell > phone. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 24 Feb 2003 09:21:52 -0800 From: Gabriel Langfur Subject: Re: While we're on the topic of mouthpieces... --- Chris Dearth wrote: > Has anyone experimented with different materials? If so, > to what effect. > Different brass mixtures (yellow brass vs. gold brass vs. > rose brass). When I ordered a custom mouthpiece from Schilke years ago, I talked to Scott Laskey about the design. I wanted to try something heavier, and he told me he didn't want to do that. For custom trombone mouthpieces, he liked to use an outer shape much more like a Bach mouthpiece, for the more even distribution of the mass. He said that to balance using less material than the standard Schilke blank, he used a different alloy brass. I assume he used gold or red brass, which are both heavier alloys than the standard yellow. He was right, by the way. The response of my custom 60 was much more even than the standard 60, and it didn't lose anything in the sound for the reduction in material. Dillon Music has a line of tuba mouthpieces, and I believe solid copper is one of the options they make available. They say it has some of the nice properties of a heavier blank without some of the drawbacks. I've also heard of others having their > mouthpieces heat > treated. I'm sure Monette does that - he takes a torch to everything that comes out of his shop as far as I know. Chris, you remember Robin Pyle, right? He now makes his own mouthpieces for natural trumpet, and I know he's experimented with heat-treating them. In fact, he made a weight for Josh Hauser (trombone/euphonium teacher at Tennessee Tech now) to use on his euphonium mouthpiece, which Josh at first didn't like - it was too hard to adjust intonation and the sound became too harsh. Then Robin took a torch to it, and it mellowed the effects quite a bit and made it easier to adjust the intonation by bending the pitch a little. Let us know how your paraffin mouthpiece works out Chris ;) ===== Gabe Langfur Boston, MA __________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Tax Center - forms, calculators, tips, more http://taxes.yahoo.com/ ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 24 Feb 2003 09:43:19 -0800 From: Gabriel Langfur Subject: Re: Idle tuning question --- richardt@LEE.ARMY.MIL wrote: Why not simply > have the oboist > hold up the tuner with the A playing? Why not have every > orchestra start > doing this? Tuning the group to an audible pitch seems > to be far preferable > (and faster) than tuning to a display on a tuner, but why > not use the > steadist possible pitch available? Because it's not human, and every time you introduce a non-human element into a situation with acoustic instruments you're asking for trouble. In this case, clearly the oboist was having a problem. Good oboists, barring horrible equipment difficulties, can produce a steady, musical tone that everyone can find a blend with. These days most of them give their A while referencing a tuner, preferably with a contact mic so that the tuner hears only them. The Boston Symphony tunes to an electronic tone. To keep at least a little bit of tradition, the principal oboist pushes the button - or flips the switch or whatever - that generates the tone. I don't know the history behind this, but I can say with certainty that I hate it and can't find a way to blend with that sound to tune to it. I don't know exactly how Doug feels about it, but I suspect he's not fond of the pitch generator either. I know Norman Bolter hates it. ===== Gabe Langfur Boston, MA __________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Tax Center - forms, calculators, tips, more http://taxes.yahoo.com/ ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 24 Feb 2003 11:44:29 -0600 From: Jeff Oien Subject: Re: While we're on the topic of mouthpieces... > Gabriel Langfur > When I ordered a custom mouthpiece from Schilke years ago, > I talked to Scott Laskey about the design. I wanted to try > something heavier, and he told me he didn't want to do > that. For custom trombone mouthpieces, he liked to use an > outer shape much more like a Bach mouthpiece, for the more > even distribution of the mass. He said that to balance > using less material than the standard Schilke blank, he > used a different alloy brass. I assume he used gold or red > brass, which are both heavier alloys than the standard > yellow. He was right, by the way. The response of my custom > 60 was much more even than the standard 60, and it didn't > lose anything in the sound for the reduction in material. I always wondered why the shape is different. Very interesting. I have a custom Schilke 60 from the late eighties that I'm using right now (shallower cup). I filed and sanded down the shank so it would fit properly in my Bach. The brass looks like slightly tarnished gold. Do they still do this? Jeff Oien ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 24 Feb 2003 10:14:28 -0800 From: Gabriel Langfur Subject: Re: mouthpiece mass Hi Tim, Once again I find myself wanting to argue with you on the fundamental assumptions with which you come to these types of discussions. I guess that's how progress happens :) --- richardt@LEE.ARMY.MIL wrote: > The most reasonable case to be made for apparent effects > of additional mass > is that it affects the feedback available to the player. > (the brass itself > is really not involved much in making the wind column > sound heard by the > audience) I think the jury's still out - way out - on that one. The > player must somehow > use that feedback to do something different. I'm not saying something diffferent happens in the mind of the player. Actually I wouldn't say that it doesn't, but that wasn't my point. I'm talking about feedback from the strict standpoint of the nature of the buzz - the actual frequency spectrum being produced by the vibration of the lips, and how it changes over time. Differing amounts of mass at the mouthpiece usually have profound effects on articulation, and I think that that is due to the feedback the instrument gives the player. A more efficient feedback system (meaning either heavier or smaller bore) will, for many players, result in clearer articulations with less turbulence at the beginning of the tone. There are drawbacks of course to a highly efficient instrument system, and players with highly efficient or otherwise very powerful embouchure and breath systems often prefer instruments that are less efficient. Think Charlie Vernon's huge mouthpiece, no leadpipe, almost no resistance at all setup, and you have the best example. > In the trombone case, what is the "do something"? We > take the premise that > part of our feedback is from the sound in the room, part > of it is the > secondary feedback arriving from the bell, and we are > using the bell > feedback to compute our error (sound concept in head > minus sound from bell > equals error). I'm talking about feedback to the energy of the source vibration itself, even before the conscious or subconscious mind of the player gets involved. Of course, the mind of the player gets involved on many different levels, but that's not the aspect I'm talking about. > > It is possible of course that Chris is right and that we > all sound pretty > much alike. I'm going out on a limb to say I think he's completely wrong. If I hand my instrument to another player it invariably sounds more like that player than it sounds like me. And the recognizable differences between > players, except for > anomalies like Joe Alessi on one end and strangled > beginners on the other, > are solely due to articulation and technique choices. Of course, articulation and technique choices have huge significance to the sound an audience hears, but... > It is not obvious to me how the lip/air > combination can have a > significant effect on the spectral content of the buzz. Tim, this is where I think your engineering brain gets in the way of your understanding of the trombone. Please, I mean no offense (having disussed these topics with you before I don't think you'll be offended), just trying to further the discussion. It's obvious to me based on years of experience, playing with and listening to hundreds of brass players, that the size and shape of a players' lips (not to mention oral cavity and everything else), the way the player uses air, and the degree and manner in which the player has developed his/her embouchure, have very nearly everything to do with the spectral content of the buzz. I can hear it, and don't tell me I'm imagining it or I'll pack up my toys and go home. > But it may be > possible to get the same pitch with different > combinations of tension, mass, > and length. Length, no. That's the fixed property of pitch as I understand it, but certainly yes to tension and mass. You certainly can on a guitar string and the > vibration > properties obviously change. Can you do that with the > lips? I dunno. > Thoughts? Yes, perfect example. Some players are always playing on the low E string - think lips, big oral cavity, etc. - and have to tailor their physical approach and equipment choice to complement that. Other players are playing with lighter physical tools and require different playing approaches and equipment choices. > > On the other hand, it is easy to see how you affect the > horn response, by > playing consistently above or below the pitch center. In > fact, that may be > the only way to actually affect the timbre produced. That's certainly significant, but it's not the only factor by any means. ===== Gabe Langfur Boston, MA __________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Tax Center - forms, calculators, tips, more http://taxes.yahoo.com/ ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 24 Feb 2003 10:14:29 -0800 From: Jim Robins Subject: Thank you! Was: Ricky Martin Chart Thank you to all who offered to help with my dilemma of getting a chart for "She Bangs" by Ricky Martin. I actually had an epiphany when I woke up this morning and was able to finish it by 10 AM this morning. Thanks again! Jim ===== James Robins Band Director - Hampstead Middle School, Hampstead, NH Freelance Trombonist - New England Area Kappa Kappa Psi - Iota Phi Alumni http://www.geocities.com/nhtrombone __________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Tax Center - forms, calculators, tips, more http://taxes.yahoo.com/ ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 24 Feb 2003 10:17:30 -0800 From: Gabriel Langfur Subject: Re: While we're on the topic of mouthpieces... --- Jeff Oien wrote: > I always wondered why the shape is different. Very > interesting. > I have a custom Schilke 60 from the late eighties that > I'm > using right now (shallower cup). I filed and sanded down > the > shank so it would fit properly in my Bach. The brass > looks > like slightly tarnished gold. Do they still do this? > Jeff Oien I don't know - I also got my custom 60 in the late 80s. Gabe ===== Gabe Langfur Boston, MA __________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Tax Center - forms, calculators, tips, more http://taxes.yahoo.com/ ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 24 Feb 2003 10:18:55 -0800 From: John & Rossana Cather Subject: Re: While we're on the topic of mouthpieces... Many years ago Schilke did a tremendous amount of research on this. I don't have the info handy, but I understand he had bells made of everything from glass to solid lead. The results were that brass produced the most favorable tone in general. Lead was so bright sounding that it was ugly. Glass was so dull sounding that it was ugly. I would have thought the other way around, but after a little more age and education, I understand that the heavy and soft materials don't vibrate much, and allow the buzz to pass with less interference. And harder and lighter materials vibrate more and deaden the sound as it passes. As far as the tone intensifier goes. I understand that the first area of the instrument is more critical, so if the tone deadens there it has more of an effect on the final sound out the bell. So dampening the vibrations there (at the mpc) and therefore causing the sound to be brighter as it passes through the rest of the horn, is what they are after. Wooden mpc's always have a more mellow tone (all else being equal). I tried the Bach sterling bell and only noticed that the upper partials were more pronounced. I never used a tone intensifier or heavy mpc. I like my sound as it is now. Maybe someone can post about the Schilke tests or some other tests of interest. Cheers, John Cather At 0:00 -0600 2/24/03, Automatic digest processor wrote: >Date: Sun, 23 Feb 2003 20:23:09 -0500 >From: Chris Dearth >Subject: While we're on the topic of mouthpieces... > >Has anyone experimented with different materials? If so, to what effect. >Different brass mixtures (yellow brass vs. gold brass vs. rose brass). I >know Yamaha makes a Sterling Silver trumpet mouthpiece (now that is an >expensive one). I've also heard of others having their mouthpieces heat >treated. Since everybody got on the mouthpiece jag, I just had to ask. ;-) > >On an interesting side note, I remember seeing a mouthpiece Andrew >Glendenning did as a Winter Term project at Oberlin where he made a trombone >with a cup out of parafin to see if it would work (I know that's an >over-simplification of his project, but at least mostly right). I think >that will be my next mouthpiece; a Greg Black Heavy-Weight, Parafin Cup, 1 >1/2G rim with a 12C cup. Oughta be pretty sweet...(tongue firmly planted in >cheek) :-) > >Chris Dearth ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 24 Feb 2003 14:09:39 -0600 From: Fred Hudson Subject: Re: While we're on the topic of mouthpieces... ----- Original Message ----- From: "John & Rossana Cather" To: Sent: Monday, February 24, 2003 12:18 PM Subject: Re: [TBN-L] While we're on the topic of mouthpieces... > > > Maybe someone can post about the Schilke tests or some other tests of interest. > > Cheers, > John Cather There is an excellent page on "all you ever wanted to know about Schilke" maintained by Jim Donaldson (a trumpet guy). There is a reprint there of Schilke's study of materials and shape factors on tone production. the link is: http://www.dallasmusic.org/schilke/ Fred H > > At 0:00 -0600 2/24/03, Automatic digest processor wrote: > >Date: Sun, 23 Feb 2003 20:23:09 -0500 > >From: Chris Dearth > >Subject: While we're on the topic of mouthpieces... > > > >Has anyone experimented with different materials? If so, to what effect. > >Different brass mixtures (yellow brass vs. gold brass vs. rose brass). I > >know Yamaha makes a Sterling Silver trumpet mouthpiece (now that is an > >expensive one). I've also heard of others having their mouthpieces heat > >treated. Since everybody got on the mouthpiece jag, I just had to ask. ;-) > > > >On an interesting side note, I remember seeing a mouthpiece Andrew > >Glendenning did as a Winter Term project at Oberlin where he made a trombone > >with a cup out of parafin to see if it would work (I know that's an > >over-simplification of his project, but at least mostly right). I think > >that will be my next mouthpiece; a Greg Black Heavy-Weight, Parafin Cup, 1 > >1/2G rim with a 12C cup. Oughta be pretty sweet...(tongue firmly planted in > >cheek) :-) > > > >Chris Dearth > > ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 24 Feb 2003 15:39:21 EST From: Dansatt@AOL.COM Subject: Black^Hill 0G I'm interested in buying a Black^Hill 0G or 0GM bass trombone mouthpiece. Anyone out there have one they want to part with? Thanks, Dan Satterwhite ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 24 Feb 2003 15:01:07 -0600 From: conn60h Subject: Big Mouthpiece / Small Horn Does anyone have any experience using an extremely large, shallow = mouthpiece on a small bore tenor trombone? =20 I use Doug Elliott Mouthpieces (Schilke 59 rims), for both my bass = trombones, and euphonium. Recently, I picked up an Olds Super ('47 = vintage). I haven't played any kind of tenor for over 20 years. I'm not sure if I should stick with the Elliott system, or switch to my = old 6 3/4C. Or perhaps something smaller. I do feel very comfortable = with the Schilke 59 rim. Will intonation suffer much with the larger = rim?=20 Thanks ahead of time, Kenny Jay ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 24 Feb 2003 17:23:34 -0500 From: Steve Carr CARR Subject: Re: Big Mouthpiece / Small Horn If youÕre just going to do occasional tenor bone playing then keeping the same rim may work. Intonation shouldnÕt be a problem it the rest of the MP matches the horn. Endurance will be the issue. The demands of the type of tenor playing you want to do will determine whether you can make it work or not. I went down this route for years but eventually found that one rim wouldnÕt work if you want to have a good sounding pedal F on bass and a good sounding high F on tenor. That said, I believe fellow list member Walter Barrett uses a Schilke 59 rim for bass, tenor and alto. Walter? regards Steve ----- Original Message ----- From: conn60h Date: Monday, February 24, 2003 4:01 pm Subject: [TBN-L] Big Mouthpiece / Small Horn > Does anyone have any experience using an extremely large, shallow > mouthpiece on a small bore tenor trombone? > > I use Doug Elliott Mouthpieces (Schilke 59 rims), for both my bass > trombones, and euphonium. Recently, I picked up an Olds Super > ('47 vintage). I haven't played any kind of tenor for over 20 years. > > I'm not sure if I should stick with the Elliott system, or switch > to my old 6 3/4C. Or perhaps something smaller. I do feel very > comfortable with the Schilke 59 rim. Will intonation suffer much > with the larger rim? > > Thanks ahead of time, > > Kenny Jay > ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 24 Feb 2003 18:39:09 -0500 From: "Wessner, John" Subject: Re: Big Mouthpiece / Small Horn It shouldn't matter. Doug (used to) makes his cups for a 1.00" rim. The primary factors are the pop tone and the volume. How you get that is pretty much irrelevant - except for the little whistle he builds into the throat. jw -----Original Message----- From: conn60h [mailto:conn60h@VISI.COM] Sent: Monday, February 24, 2003 4:01 PM To: TROMBONE-L@PO.MISSOURI.EDU Subject: [TBN-L] Big Mouthpiece / Small Horn Does anyone have any experience using an extremely large, shallow mouthpiece on a small bore tenor trombone? I use Doug Elliott Mouthpieces (Schilke 59 rims), for both my bass trombones, and euphonium. Recently, I picked up an Olds Super ('47 vintage). I haven't played any kind of tenor for over 20 years. I'm not sure if I should stick with the Elliott system, or switch to my old 6 3/4C. Or perhaps something smaller. I do feel very comfortable with the Schilke 59 rim. Will intonation suffer much with the larger rim? Thanks ahead of time, Kenny Jay ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2003 00:03:22 +0000 From: Daniel Pliskin Subject: Re: Idle tuning question >In each case they tuned to >the oboist's A, and I guess I would be charitable in saying she appeared to >be having some equipment difficulties. An oboist having trouble with her equipment? >Her A sagged and drifted at least 20 >cents, maybe 40, and I wouldn't have had a clue which one to tune to. >Why not simply have the oboist... If an orchestra is going to have an oboist, they need to tune to it. The oboe hasn't a chance in hell of tuning to that electronic gadget. Listen to how out of tune the second oboe is, for example. DanP _________________________________________________________________ Help STOP SPAM with the new MSN 8 and get 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2003 00:20:14 +0000 From: Daniel Pliskin Subject: Re: While we're on the topic of mouthpieces... >Many years ago Schilke did a tremendous amount of research on this. >I don't have the info handy, but I understand he had bells made of >everything from glass to solid lead. The results were that brass >produced the most favorable tone in general. In that trombones evolved as a brass instruments, one would assume that what evolved, sounded good when made of brass. Had they started with glass, a very different instrument would have evolved, which sounded best, made of glass. I do use a mouthpiece weight, so I guess I hear a difference. But why would mouthpiece manufacturers make moouthpieces in regular and heavy configurations, if there wasn't any difference? DanP _________________________________________________________________ Add photos to your e-mail with MSN 8. Get 2 months FREE*. http://join.msn.com/?page=features/featuredemail ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2003 00:32:39 +0000 From: Daniel Pliskin Subject: Re: Big Mouthpiece / Small Horn >Does anyone have any experience using an extremely large, shallow >mouthpiece on a small bore tenor trombone? I use either a hogged out Bach 4 or a cut down Wick 4 with my small- and medium-bore trombones. I like the tone but tone is a personal thing. If you like the tone of a large-rimmed mouthpiece on a small-bore trombone, then I recommend it. I found that there's much less difference between the sounds of my various small-bore trombones, once I switched to a large-rimmed mouthpiece. So much so, in fact, that I rarely play the small-bore horns any more. DanP _________________________________________________________________ MSN 8 helps eliminate e-mail viruses. Get 2 months FREE*. http://join.msn.com/?page=features/virus ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 24 Feb 2003 20:22:24 -0500 From: "Hector Bourg Jr." Subject: Re: While we're on the topic of mouthpieces... > But why would mouthpiece manufacturers make moouthpieces > in regular and heavy configurations, if there wasn't any difference? Surely you jest Dan! Trombone gadget freaks will buy almost ANYthing...at least once! :-) I'll bet there is at least one frantic 'bonist urgently making an inventory of his gig bag wondering how he missed buying a "moouthpiece"!! (smiles all around!) **************************************************************************** *** Hector "Butch" Bourg Jr. - Graphic and Web Design - Atlanta, GA **************************************************************************** *** Trombonist - Sentimental Journey Orchestra - http://www.thesjo.com ** NOW CELEBRATING TWENTY-SEVEN SWINGIN' YEARS ** **************************************************************************** *** ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 24 Feb 2003 20:16:25 -0500 From: john burton Subject: Re: While we're on the topic of mouthpieces... I just had my Schlike 59 turned/trimed to fit my Bach 50B3. Karl did a fine job and it was well worth it! (now I don't need to re-tune every time I pop the "flagen" mouthpiece in/out for those added bass notes). When I opened the box, I thought sure they'd sent me a gold-plated mouthpiece instead of the silver I'd sent for work! Actually, the shaft is now a shiny yellow brass, and fits my Bach exactly like my Bach 1 1/2G! Is this a good place to comment on how much I like Schlike's customer support??? --==jb==-- ~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~= john burton Bach 50B3 Bass Trombone, Charleston NeoPhonic Orchestra South Charleston, West Virginia -----Original Message----- From: Trombones and related issues forum. [mailto:TROMBONE-L@PO.MISSOURI.EDU] On Behalf Of Jeff Oien Sent: Monday, February 24, 2003 12:44 PM To: TROMBONE-L@PO.MISSOURI.EDU Subject: Re: [TBN-L] While we're on the topic of mouthpieces... > Gabriel Langfur > When I ordered a custom mouthpiece from Schilke years ago, > I talked to Scott Laskey about the design. I wanted to try something > heavier, and he told me he didn't want to do that. For custom trombone > mouthpieces, he liked to use an outer shape much more like a Bach > mouthpiece, for the more even distribution of the mass. He said that > to balance using less material than the standard Schilke blank, he > used a different alloy brass. I assume he used gold or red > brass, which are both heavier alloys than the standard > yellow. He was right, by the way. The response of my custom > 60 was much more even than the standard 60, and it didn't > lose anything in the sound for the reduction in material. I always wondered why the shape is different. Very interesting. I have a custom Schilke 60 from the late eighties that I'm using right now (shallower cup). I filed and sanded down the shank so it would fit properly in my Bach. The brass looks like slightly tarnished gold. Do they still do this? Jeff Oien ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 24 Feb 2003 20:52:23 -0500 From: Craig Parmerlee Subject: Re: Big Mouthpiece / Small Horn At 03:01 PM 2/24/2003 -0600, conn60h wrote: >Does anyone have any experience using an extremely large, shallow >mouthpiece on a small bore tenor trombone? > >I use Doug Elliott Mouthpieces (Schilke 59 rims), for both my bass >trombones, and euphonium. Recently, I picked up an Olds Super ('47 >vintage). I haven't played any kind of tenor for over 20 years. > >I'm not sure if I should stick with the Elliott system, or switch to my >old 6 3/4C. Or perhaps something smaller. I do feel very comfortable >with the Schilke 59 rim. Will intonation suffer much with the larger rim? I have an Elliott 114 rim (similar to the S59) with a LB C cup, which is extremely shallow. It is a curious setup. It feels like a bass mouthpiece, but is quite brilliant. I don't find it very useful. As a tenor mouthpiece, it makes me feel like trying to run in sand. If the idea is to allow the bass to be a better double for tenor, there are other mouthpieces that work much better. (The Kaplan by Parke, for example). One thing that I find with this Elliott combination is that in loud passages, my lips can actually touch the bottom of the cup. That's a weird feeling. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2003 03:18:25 +0000 From: Daniel Pliskin Subject: Re: While we're on the topic of mouthpieces... > > But why would mouthpiece manufacturers make moouthpieces > > in regular and heavy configurations, if there wasn't any difference? >Surely you jest Dan! Trombone gadget freaks will buy almost ANYthing...at >least once! :-) Hector, Yes and I DO count myself as on of those gadget freaks. I make my own versions of those gadgets, but I've still tried a lot of gadgets. But I also find lots of people putting down the idea of adding weights to a trombone...people who have never tried it. And I'm saying that for a dollar, the next time you're at a hardware store, you can try it and know what you're talking about, rather than spend your time postulating about something you know nothing about. I will add that there are probably as many people who have tried weights and either don't like them or didn't hear any difference as there are people who have tried weights and like them. But for those who haven't ever tried mouthpiece weights and feel that this is, none the less, a forum to discus your philosophies about it, I say unto y'all, GET REAL. Well know acousticians haven't a clue about acoustics, but you somehow do? When I played a smaller mouthpiece, I hated the sound of mouthpiece weights. On my medium-bore trombone, I love the sound of mouthpiece weights. I find that they quicken the attacks, a mixed blessing, to be sure. You need to get the slide there sooner, if the attack is shorter. But I wouldn't have a prayer at playing bebop without a mouthpiece weight...not with the equipment I presently play. DanP _________________________________________________________________ Protect your PC - get McAfee.com VirusScan Online http://clinic.mcafee.com/clinic/ibuy/campaign.asp?cid=3963 ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 24 Feb 2003 21:40:46 -0600 From: s76lewis Subject: Mouthpiece weights Daniel, I am interested in the weight, but what do I ask for at the store? I don't think a clerk would be a lot of help with trombone stuff. And do you secure it with something? ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 24 Feb 2003 21:49:24 -0800 From: "Joe L. Norcross" Subject: Re: While we're on the topic of mouthpieces... Shilke has made for me bass mouthpieces with tenor shank and tenor mouthpieces with bass shank , That is so some of my older horns have the proper shaft Joe L. Norcross Tuba: Visalia CA Sequoia Winds Bass Trombone: Clovis CA Community Band Tuba and Announcer: Kingsburg CA City Band joetuba@lightspeed.net ----- Original Message ----- From: "john burton" To: Sent: Monday, February 24, 2003 5:16 PM Subject: Re: [TBN-L] While we're on the topic of mouthpieces... > I just had my Schlike 59 turned/trimed to fit my Bach 50B3. Karl did a > fine job and it was well worth it! (now I don't need to re-tune every > time I pop the "flagen" mouthpiece in/out for those added bass notes). > > When I opened the box, I thought sure they'd sent me a gold-plated > mouthpiece instead of the silver I'd sent for work! Actually, the shaft > is now a shiny yellow brass, and fits my Bach exactly like my Bach 1 > 1/2G! > > Is this a good place to comment on how much I like Schlike's customer > support??? > > --==jb==-- > > ~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~= > > john burton > Bach 50B3 > Bass Trombone, Charleston NeoPhonic Orchestra > South Charleston, West Virginia > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Trombones and related issues forum. > [mailto:TROMBONE-L@PO.MISSOURI.EDU] On Behalf Of Jeff Oien > Sent: Monday, February 24, 2003 12:44 PM > To: TROMBONE-L@PO.MISSOURI.EDU > Subject: Re: [TBN-L] While we're on the topic of mouthpieces... > > > > Gabriel Langfur > > When I ordered a custom mouthpiece from Schilke years ago, > > I talked to Scott Laskey about the design. I wanted to try something > > heavier, and he told me he didn't want to do that. For custom trombone > > > mouthpieces, he liked to use an outer shape much more like a Bach > > mouthpiece, for the more even distribution of the mass. He said that > > to balance using less material than the standard Schilke blank, he > > used a different alloy brass. I assume he used gold or red > > brass, which are both heavier alloys than the standard > > yellow. He was right, by the way. The response of my custom > > 60 was much more even than the standard 60, and it didn't > > lose anything in the sound for the reduction in material. > > I always wondered why the shape is different. Very interesting. I have a > custom Schilke 60 from the late eighties that I'm using right now > (shallower cup). I filed and sanded down the shank so it would fit > properly in my Bach. The brass looks like slightly tarnished gold. Do > they still do this? Jeff Oien ------------------------------ End of TROMBONE-L Digest - 23 Feb 2003 to 24 Feb 2003 (#2003-55) ****************************************************************