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

[ttf_savio]

Ok then I am sorry and have not read it carefully. Sorry! I play a schilke 59 and feel its ok for me.
I have also tried the yamaha Yeo mouthpiece and its very nice. The sound is warm and dark but it take so much of my air. If I practice 4-5 hours every day I can control it but...... When I play my schilke I can think more music when I play.

The mouthpiece I found "Reynolds & son 1 1/2" look and feels like a copy of bach 1 1/2.
 

Leif

[ttf_blast]

Quote from: savio on Aug 25, 2007, 02:46AMOk then I am sorry and have not read it carefully. Sorry! I play a schilke 59 and feel its ok for me.
I have also tried the yamaha Yeo mouthpiece and its very nice. The sound is warm and dark but it take so much of my air. If I practice 4-5 hours every day I can control it but...... When I play my schilke I can think more music when I play.

The mouthpiece I found "Reynolds & son 1 1/2" look and feels like a copy of bach 1 1/2.
 

Leif

Yes Leif, most big mouthpieces take more air and demand more embouchure development than small mouthpieces.
There is no right and wrong with mouthpieces... we have to find what is right for our own needs.. both in terms of physical ability and tonal concept. If you like the feel and sound that you get with the Schilke 59, then that is fine... there are great players using all sorts of size and design of mouthpiece.
I started this thread having read again and again that the Bach 1 1/2G was a good 'beginner' mouthpiece, and that things had moved on since the Bach 1 1/2G was made....
Now I don't think that is correct... too many really fine players use these mouthpieces, and I have come back to one myself after more than 25 years on the big stuff... mostly the Schilke 60. For me the reason is mostly sound... I just cannot get the sort of sound I want on the bigger mouthpieces... even though I find them easy to play on.... the old Bach 1 1/2G gets me where I want to be in tonal terms.
Interestingly, over the course of this thread, many players have owned up to a 1 1/2G habit, and others have tried them again or even gone to them for the first time and been surprised by what they have found.
The thread is not about converting players to the 1 1/2G... it's about keeping an open mind, and realising that good things can be sitting under your nose and can be ignored because of mere familiarity.
Chris Stearn.

[ttf_mwpfoot]

Quote from: blast on Aug 25, 2007, 11:41AMThe thread is not about converting players to the 1 1/2G... it's about keeping an open mind, and realising that good things can be sitting under your nose and can be ignored because of mere familiarity.
Nicely said.

 

[ttf_anonymous]

Quote from: blast on Aug 25, 2007, 11:41AMYes Leif, most big mouthpieces take more air and demand more embouchure development than small mouthpieces.
There is no right and wrong with mouthpieces... we have to find what is right for our own needs.. both in terms of physical ability and tonal concept. If you like the feel and sound that you get with the Schilke 59, then that is fine... there are great players using all sorts of size and design of mouthpiece.
I started this thread having read again and again that the Bach 1 1/2G was a good 'beginner' mouthpiece, and that things had moved on since the Bach 1 1/2G was made....
Now I don't think that is correct... too many really fine players use these mouthpieces, and I have come back to one myself after more than 25 years on the big stuff... mostly the Schilke 60. For me the reason is mostly sound... I just cannot get the sort of sound I want on the bigger mouthpieces... even though I find them easy to play on.... the old Bach 1 1/2G gets me where I want to be in tonal terms.
Interestingly, over the course of this thread, many players have owned up to a 1 1/2G habit, and others have tried them again or even gone to them for the first time and been surprised by what they have found.
The thread is not about converting players to the 1 1/2G... it's about keeping an open mind, and realising that good things can be sitting under your nose and can be ignored because of mere familiarity.
Chris Stearn.

You're conclusion rings true, as I went on a search for the magical mouthpiece and ended up right back where I began.  I guess I had to figure out whether the gains were worth the sacrifices....so far they aren't and I'm back on my original piece. 

DG

[ttf_anonymous]

 The perfect 1&1/2 G-is(I've always thought) like the Holy Grail of sound on the Bass Trombone. I think I know what is is,but in a strange sort of way-I still search. 27.5(inner diam.) is somehow a break between small and not so small. Most of the Modern Horns on the market today are a result of the input from players that  play big mouthpieces. I'm not sure if anyone has experienced this. Maybe on an intuitive level-if you know what I mean. You plug in a 1&1/2 in and it feels weird-like the shoe is too small. So next thing I know the larger mouthpiece is in the Horn because "it works better". Like most relationships,things begin to come into question over time.
So one day,out of frustration the 1&1/2G is plugged in and it works!

[ttf_blast]

Quote from: Donward59 on Aug 26, 2007, 09:16PM The perfect 1&1/2 G-is(I've always thought) like the Holy Grail of sound on the Bass Trombone. I think I know what is is,but in a strange sort of way-I still search. 27.5(inner diam.) is somehow a break between small and not so small. Most of the Modern Horns on the market today are a result of the input from players that  play big mouthpieces. I'm not sure if anyone has experienced this. Maybe on an intuitive level-if you know what I mean. You plug in a 1&1/2 in and it feels weird-like the shoe is too small. So next thing I know the larger mouthpiece is in the Horn because "it works better". Like most relationships,things begin to come into question over time.
So one day,out of frustration the 1&1/2G is plugged in and it works!

Good point about modern horns, Don. Interestingly, Ian Davies, who did almost all the development work on the Rath bass, did it on the 1 1/2G. One reason why you might like the horn.
I agree with you about the 27.5 break point.... beyond that rim size the sound is always different.
Chris Stearn.

[ttf_puma]

I played a 1 1/2 G when I did bass bone in college, but I found the rim painfully uncomfortable and switched to a Schilke 58. Now I play euph and tenor and only pick up my bass for exactly one gig a year, so the search has ended.

John Thompson

Visit FreeBandMusic.biz and download free music for
concert band, marching band, and brass quintet.

[ttf_svenlarsson]

Yes that was/is the problem with the inconsistency of Bach mouthpieces.
Some 1 ½ G rims are terrible. And some of the cups look like they are drilled by students.
Some of the back bores are lopsided, not in the middle.

But sometimes you find a good piece, and then it is very good.
But those are less then 25% of the production I say.

[ttf_bonesmarsh]

I was at an ITA conference in Nashville, USA back in '81 and '82. VP and quality control guy " L.F." from Bach was manning the Bach booth at the demo tables.

I opened the box on a NEW Bach 1 1/2GM which was a new model back then. The backbore had been drilled so off center that it was razor sharp on one edge and about 1/4" thick on the other. Whoever was running the drill press must have been drunk or blind.

I took the mouthpiece to Mr. "L.F" and showed him the mistake that had made it all the way to the top trade show in the USA for professional trombonists and their accompanying students. His reaction?? " He snarled a- " Well then, don't buy the f*****g thing." I walked away to the Holton display where Lew Van Haney was busy playing Remington exercises and blowing the breeze with a legion of his students.

Later that day at the mass bone choir rehearsal a kid behind me was bragging that he'd "managed" to score a "new prototype Bach 1 1/2GM" from the table.

Lets talk about Mount Vernon for a while can we??? I'd do us all good to tell happy stories for a while!

Later the same year I came across a "prototype" 36C. Removeable F-attachment 36B. The mechanism was so out of whack that the local music store owner had to show me how easy it was to do, and exchange the valve attachment. He was 6 '5" and about 240 lbs. His face went red, and eventually he bent the mechanism so badly that the whole brace was torqued and he had to return it to the factory as a 'second".

Bach now? Bach in the past 25 or 30 years? Not on your life.

[ttf_blast]

I've been told that Bach constructed some kind of rotary  tool to make mouthpieces faster, probably when they moved to Elkhart... and that movement in that tool led to the off-center backbores... only a story.. I'll wait and see if there's any truth in it.
The New York and Mt Vernon stamped stuff is almost always light years ahead of what followed... whatever the reason.
Chris Stearn.

[ttf_bonesmarsh]

Well, if all of the stories and suppositions are true then there is only one course of action for all of us to take---

If Bach ever returns to work after being on strike then I propose that all of us treat them the way that they have treated us as loyal and potential customers....

We pay for their sub-standard and sub-quality gear with sub-quality funds. Photo-copy money and print it off-center. Pay for the merchandise in funds as good as the merchandise you receive.

OR... as we are all doing now continue to purchase gear that DOES WORK. The faxx mouthpieces. etc. etc. etc.

 Bach has themselves to blame only. THEY created the vaccuum they fell into themselves.

Thanks for the GREAT mouthpieces, Vince!

Tough luck Conn-Selmer-UMI-Holton-blatzz-Fluurrtz-JinBao. (Whomever you are this week on the stock market!!??!!)

Let your credit card do the walking.

[ttf_svenlarsson]

Who makes the best "Bach 1 1/2G" Mouthpieces?

[ttf_blast]

Quote from: svenlarsson on Sep 01, 2007, 02:01PMWho makes the best "Bach 1 1/2G" Mouthpieces?

Simple.... old man Bach when he owned the company.... I've played just about every commonly available 1 1/2G size mouthpiece, and none are quite as good. Some are easier to play, some project more, some are more slotted, some are darker... but the best (and not all the old ones measure up) of the Mt Vernon 1 1/2G's are very special indeed.
Closest to that are some of the 'George Roberts' mouthpieces made in the '80's.... copies of his Bachs.
Chris Stearn.

[ttf_Horn Builder]

G'day all,

I find it interesting that people have this "rose coloured glasses" view of NY and Mt Vernon Bach product. That they are the "Holy Grail".

That contrasts with the widely help belief that, as stated by Sam Burtis, and echoed by many others, "if you want a custom mounthpiece, line up a dozen Bach's and find the one you like". Sam, I believe, was talking about the Mt Vernon and early Elkhart era. Consistency was not something that was a big selling point for Bach in those days. The way the pieces were made didn't allow for anything like the consistency achieved today with CNC lathes, as used by almost every mouthpiece maker out there, including Bach.

When I was at the shop last week I was shown the safe that holds all the mouthpieces, hand selected by Mr Bach himself, that represent "exactly" what each of the models was supposed to be like, according to Mr Bach. Each of those pieces was digitised and that info was used to program the CNC machines that now cut Bach mouthpieces. The consistency of Bachs mouthpieces today is better than it ever has been, due to the method that they are produced.

But there-in lies the rub. Each one of the "perfect" mouthpieces, which has then been copied hundreds of times over, wasn't one that Chris (and others like him) think are the "very special indeed" mouthpieces. If only Mr Bach had chosen one of those...

M

[ttf_blast]

Quote from: Horn Builder on Sep 03, 2007, 06:52PMG'day all,

I find it interesting that people have this "rose coloured glasses" view of NY and Mt Vernon Bach product. That they are the "Holy Grail".

That contrasts with the widely help belief that, as stated by Sam Burtis, and echoed by many others, "if you want a custom mouthpiece, line up a dozen Bach's and find the one you like". Sam, I believe, was talking about the Mt Vernon and early Elkhart era. Consistency was not something that was a big selling point for Bach in those days. The way the pieces were made didn't allow for anything like the consistency achieved today with CNC lathes, as used by almost every mouthpiece maker out there, including Bach.

When I was at the shop last week I was shown the safe that holds all the mouthpieces, hand selected by Mr Bach himself, that represent "exactly" what each of the models was supposed to be like, according to Mr Bach. Each of those pieces was digitised and that info was used to program the CNC machines that now cut Bach mouthpieces. The consistency of Bachs mouthpieces today is better than it ever has been, due to the method that they are produced.

But there-in lies the rub. Each one of the "perfect" mouthpieces, which has then been copied hundreds of times over, wasn't one that Chris (and others like him) think are the "very special indeed" mouthpieces. If only Mr Bach had chosen one of those...

M

Some things come to mind Matt....
I've found just as much variation with CNC produced mouthpieces as I have with traditionally made examples.... and trust me, I've compared LOTS of examples. It's in the polishing... all that care in cutting is at the mercy of the polishing process. The maker Parke has tried to escape this by leaving the finish as it comes out of the Lathe... but people don't like the look... they look cheap and unfinished.. when they are in fact expensive and accurate.
Sam was, I think, talking mainly about New York Bachs... he even thinks that the Mt Vernons were of lesser quality than the early mouthpieces. So the 'holy grail' attitude is not about to be dismissed by Mr Burtis.
I've thought about making really fine mouthpieces a lot... and some of my ideas have turned into products.
I've been happy that these designs worked in the way that I intended, but I have found that examples from a CNC made batch will vary considerably, from great to merely acceptable.
I have come to the conclusion that the only way to produce invariably fine mouthpieces is to finish and test each mouthpiece by hand... and only let the very finest through the system... exactly what Larry Minick did. The down-side of this is that each mouthpiece will be different.
Many years ago, I took half-a-dozen mouthpieces of the 1 1/2G 'copy' type and worked each by hand, until I had what I thought was a really fine mouthpiece. These were then simply stamped 'Enigma'. They mostly went to my students at the time. I recently had a request from a player who had tried one of these, to create an 'Enigma' from one of these 1 1/2G copies that he supplied.
The mouthpiece that came was not at all good and I had little hope of turning it into anything decent. I worked away at it and as luck would have it, it turned into one of the best mouthpieces I have played... not only was I happy to give it the 'Enigma' stamp, but I felt considerable regret when I had to send it back to it's owner.
That was lucky, as not every mouthpiece works out in the end..
Please don't send me mouthpieces for a magic fix... you could end up with a paperweight. I might try to do some more hand finishing... but I'd prefer to choose my own start point.
Mt Vernon greatness a myth ??? You choose.... oh, by the way... I'll give a nice new Bach 1 1/2G to anybody that wants to give me their old Mt Vernon 1 1/2G.... 
Chris Stearn.

[ttf_sabutin]

So...I started a reply here, and it grew.

Now it is a stand-alone post.

Who in their right mind chooses ANY mouthpiece? And...how, as well?

Here.

http://tromboneforum.org/index.php/topic,35533.0.html

Put on your rose colored classes...or take 'em off, whatever best suits your purposes...and dive on in.

See ya...

S.

[ttf_grub]

Hold on a sec, Chris.  I'm looking at a Laskey 85MD and sure enough I can see horizontal cut marks (I'm guessing from the lathe), also the inside of the cup is decidedly matte.  Word on the street is that Scott is using a CNC machine, but I bet that Gabe would confirm that the suckers play differently from one to the next.  There might be more than buffing at work here.  Plating?  Quality of metal perhaps?
Talk about mouthpiece voodoo!
-->grub

[ttf_BassBoneFL]

I sold Gabe two 93Ds that couldn't have been more different from each other. There is a certain degree of variation in the Laskey line.

[ttf_blast]

Quote from: grub on Sep 04, 2007, 07:24PMHold on a sec, Chris.  I'm looking at a Laskey 85MD and sure enough I can see horizontal cut marks (I'm guessing from the lathe), also the inside of the cup is decidedly matte.  Word on the street is that Scott is using a CNC machine, but I bet that Gabe would confirm that the suckers play differently from one to the next.  There might be more than buffing at work here.  Plating?  Quality of metal perhaps?
Talk about mouthpiece voodoo!
-->grub

A lot of makers leave the inside of mouthpieces pretty much as machined... it's one job less to do... they still vary.... even CNC . These variations have to be really tiny... but it seems that the face can detect these things... and they make a difference. Plating ??? That's hard to see as a factor... it really is thin,thin,thin. I'm still thinking polishing.... and I don't know how tool wear works on a CNC. I've seen just as big differences, piece against piece with CNC as traditional lathes.
Just a thought... if we could buy the exact same mouthpiece each time, we would end up buying far fewer mouthpieces... no incentive for the maker there then.
Chris Stearn.

[ttf_Johnny_verhoeven]

We make a lot of stuff for ESA (European Space Agency).

I can bet you Machined on a decent CNC with top cutters and cooling all the pieces are identical. Now I do not think Bach turns their MPC on a 1,000,000 Euro CNC.

I happen to play a Bach 1G I bought in the mid 80's. I just tried a bunch op MPC and that was the one that fitted. I never look at brand or size I just go for comfort and sound.

[ttf_blast]

Quote from: Johnny_verhoeven on Sep 05, 2007, 03:09AMWe make a lot of stuff for ESA (European Space Agency).

I can bet you Machined on a decent CNC with top cutters and cooling all the pieces are identical. Now I do not think Bach turns their MPC on a 1,000,000 Euro CNC.

I happen to play a Bach 1G I bought in the mid 80's. I just tried a bunch op MPC and that was the one that fitted. I never look at band or size I just go for comfort and sound.

Yup, one thing I do know is that not all CNC's are equal.

Chris Stearn.

[ttf_sabutin]

Quote from: Johnny_verhoeven on Sep 05, 2007, 03:09AMWe make a lot of stuff for ESA (European Space Agency).

I can bet you Machined on a decent CNC with top cutters and cooling all the pieces are identical. Now I do not think Bach turns their MPC on a 1,000,000 Euro CNC.

I happen to play a Bach 1G I bought in the mid 80's. I just tried a bunch op MPC and that was the one that fitted. I never look at brand or size I just go for comfort and sound.

Bach particularly is...or was in the recent past at the very least, because I have totally given up on them myself until I hear that they have radically improved...a very badly run, the-bottom-line-is-the-ONLY-line company. A couple of years ago I took three brand new Bach 36Bs out of the plastic wrappers in which they were shipped and found all three to be literally unplayable because of valve and slide manufacturing flaws. Plus, when I actually found some that were playable right out of the box they  played relatively badly. Mediocre at best. I have flat out given up even TRYING new Bachs. And yet Gary Greenhoe regularly buys Bach parts and assembles truly fine, Mt. Vernon quality horns out of them. The details are what really matter on this level. The details. The original designs were great. It is in the execution of those designs that large companies are presently faltering.

This has been going on for a long time. I once bought a Conn 100H that was made during the Abilene years and eventually gave up on it. I just couldn't seem to make it sound good. Several years later when I was thinking of selling it I noticed a small dent in the gooseneck and brought it to a repairman to have the dent taken out. When we looked inside the gooseneck, we found a lump of solder the size of several melted down BBs in there. My bad. I was MUCH less equipment oriented then. But THEIR bad as well.

This problem is nothing new. Abilene was what? 35 years ago? As soon as large corporations take over designer-run companies, the downhill slide begins. The bigger the corporations and the more the companies are sold and re-sold, the steeper the decline. Only Yamaha has seemed to be able to totally resist this corporate drift, and like the consistency of Japanese car companies, this is simply a result of a healthier working culture. And thus a healthier economic culture.

So it goes today here in Scamerica.

So it goes.

Now...you've a got an assembly line working on relatively large profit margin and fairly complicated horns, and another line churning out m'pces from blocks of brass. On which one are YOU going to put your best available workers and spend the most money on machines, no matter HOW bad the general run may be?

Duh.

Faced with burgeoning Chinese competition, I can only assume that all manufacturers are cutting whatever corners they think that they can afford to cut in an effort to simply stay in business. High end companies will be less affected by this because trombones are still relatively inexpensive compared to almost all other major instruments, but still...inflation being what it is, cutters, cooling and the CNC machines themselves are almost certainly suffering the results of cost cutting.

Let alone the people working the machines.

Bet on it.

I have tried any number of newer m'pces over the past several years, but since I have found NONE of them that absolutely knock my socks off compared to those that I am habituated to playing, I have  yet to line up a number of supposedly "identical" ones and blindfold test them. However, I would be VERY surprised if out of say seven I did not consistently pick one or two or three as better than the others.

Why?

Das not my job, hermano.

Maybe Shakespeare was a brass player.

QuoteHORATIO: O day and night, but this is wondrous strange!

HAMLET: And therefore as a stranger give it welcome.
   There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio,
   Than are dreamt of in your philosophy.

Shakespeare-Hamlet, Act I, scene V

Yup.

Live wid it.

If possible...turn it to your advantage.

I am.

As far as I am concerned, ALL m'pces are "custom" m'pces until conclusively proven otherwise.

Keep trying them, and like the proverbial infinity of monkeys at an infinity of typewriters, you too shall find a great one.

For YOU.

Have fun...

Later...

S.

[ttf_blast]

Yes Sam, I quite agree about the quality of build being at the center of trombone performance... you only have to look, as you say, at what Gary Greenhoe can do with modern Bach and Conn parts.
Mick Rath has transformed trombones simply by re-building them properly, as has Dan Oberloh.

In theory, this situation should not affect mouthpieces in the same way... most of them are one piece, and either largely or totally machine made.... so much for the theory... we know it ain't like that...

so... it seems that CNC is not really helping... or hindering. CNC lathes cover quite an area in terms of quality... and, as far as I understand, are generally specialised machines with different speed ranges, sizes etc. Mouthpieces are a cheap product, and as such, are not going to be subject to state-of-the-art machining by manufacturers. Would you pay $900 for a perfect mouthpiece ? How would it be perfect ?... only as a copy, so the original would have to be considered exceptional.... and we all like different mouthpieces.... so...we come full circle... and I have to say again how the heck did old man Bach make so many truly great mouthpieces ? That's the puzzle.

Chris Stearn.

[ttf_sabutin]

Quote from: blast on Sep 05, 2007, 10:52AM---snip---

and I have to say again how the heck did old man Bach make so many truly great mouthpieces ? That's the puzzle.

Chris Stearn.

If my experience with Vincent Bach's disciple John "Peppy" Pettinato is any indication...and I am reasonably sure that it is, as much time as I spent literally hanging out in Peppy's shop during the '70s + '80s...he did it by eye and by feel. And by input from great players as well.

Lots of them.

That's how Peppy worked. On EVERYTHING.

I watched.

I watched him work on my stuff, and I watched him work on...and deal with...lots of other players. I never talked to him much about it because...well, because in some ways Peppy was almost pre-verbal. People would come in and try to discuss measurements, etc., and he would literally clam up. Eventually they would either leave  their horn or m'pce, go away and let him fix it or they would simply go away.

Theory?

Here is about as "theoretical" as I ever heard him speak. Once I brought in an Elkhart 6 1/2A to try to open up the throat a little. He put it on his lathe, and it wobbled some. He said "Hmph!!! They can't even be bothered to center it on their lathes," and then proceeded to correct the problem.

He made me a m'pce once. I used it for several years. Another attempt to produce a 6 1/2AL w/an easier high range. He knew that I was headed in the general 6 1/2A to 6 1/2AL direction. So he made the m'pce. I tried it, and found it a little too resistant. A couple of times. He did something each time...to the throat, I think...and when it still didn't feel as open as I wanted he said. "Well..I touch it again and you'll just have another 6 1/2AL."

End of lesson. Hard machine time is over, son. Time for the soft machine to go to work.

Now maybe he wasn't as heavy as Vincent Bach. Disciples are rarely the equal of their teachers.

But he used the same approach.

Look, feel, listen, and then do.

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.

Yup.

Bet on it.

S.

[ttf_blast]

Sam, I couldn't agree more.

Chris Stearn.

[ttf_CRWV]

couple 1.5G success stories:

last night a tuba player friend happened by where i was practicing, and i was just playing around between my Brasswind 1 1/2G (super cheap, like 18 new) and a Laskey 95D. I asked him to listen

Blind test he thought the 1.5G sounded better in all registers, particularly the low end.

Today, my first day in my schools wind ensemble on bass bone; I was nervous because coming from a larger mouthpiece this year i thought my sound might have changed too much and i was going to disappoint the director who went out of his way to ask me to try out for wind ensemble. i was also worried about losing volume,

Quite the opposite! My sound was nicer, but my volume was just as good, if not better. Everything was better.

This was also in conjunction with the Tighter leadpipe.



Everything has worked better. all of it. My pedals are fine, and my trigger register is starting to work up to par.

It's really working out

[ttf_blast]

Quote from: CRWV on Sep 10, 2007, 02:59PMcouple 1.5G success stories:

last night a tuba player friend happened by where i was practicing, and i was just playing around between my Brasswind 1 1/2G (super cheap, like 18 new) and a Laskey 95D. I asked him to listen

Blind test he thought the 1.5G sounded better in all registers, particularly the low end.

Today, my first day in my schools wind ensemble on bass bone; I was nervous because coming from a larger mouthpiece this year i thought my sound might have changed too much and i was going to disappoint the director who went out of his way to ask me to try out for wind ensemble. i was also worried about losing volume,

Quite the opposite! My sound was nicer, but my volume was just as good, if not better. Everything was better.

This was also in conjunction with the Tighter leadpipe.



Everything has worked better. all of it. My pedals are fine, and my trigger register is starting to work up to par.

It's really working out

It's the difference between what we are brainwashed into thinking will happen, and what DOES happen...
bigger size = bigger sound.... simple but flawed logic. I'm very pleased that you are thinking for yourself and judging equipment by how it works.
Chris Stearn.

[ttf_slidejj]

Quote from: blast on Sep 10, 2007, 03:34PMIt's the difference between what we are brainwashed into thinking will happen, and what DOES happen...
bigger size = bigger sound.... simple but flawed logic. I'm very pleased that you are thinking for yourself and judging equipment by how it works.
Chris Stearn.

Ouch... I've been guilty of the thinking and for the last few weeks have proved to myself it's flawed.  Now in my fourth week of playing a Rath 1-1/2W I realize I've just been working harder with the bigger piece.  I knew that commercial playing would be no trouble with the smaller piece but wondered about orchestra.  Well I recently played an outdoor pops concert with the orchestra, had no trouble with volume and projection, and also no trouble getting the big/wide sound when needed.  The principle trombonist in the group who also plays some other gigs with me said, "it seems you just think wide now when you want it and it's there".  Then I told him I'd been playing a smaller mouthpiece of late.  So much for conventional wisdom

[ttf_anonymous]

I have played on a Shilke 59 for 20 years, on a few different horns including a Holton 181, Edwards dual bore dual thayer, getzen 1062 and 1052 and a Bach 50B3o.  Now I bought a benge 290 and the shilke doesn't work or fit it too well.  also this horn is so open i feel i need something to choke it a bit.  (This horn is scary open!  More free blowing than even the dual bore thayer edwards i used to play. It is a pedal monster!)

Anyway, i found an old bach 1 1/2 and viola! (I know its voila! ).  i do feel it may be a bit too tight but i am going to work with it some more.

Is there a mouthpiece in between a Bach 1 1/2 and a 1 1/4 (or Schilke 59)  How does the Schilke 58 compare to the bach 1 1/2?  I always felt the 59 and 1 1/4 were very similar; is the 58 similar to the 1 1/2?

The discussion of the Rath 1 1/2 interests me.  It sound like there are different versions, however.  Where can I get the specs on them?

ken k

[ttf_blast]

Quote from: ken k on Sep 10, 2007, 08:42PMI have played on a Shilke 59 for 20 years, on a few different horns including a Holton 181, Edwards dual bore dual thayer, getzen 1062 and 1052 and a Bach 50B3o.  Now I bought a benge 290 and the shilke doesn't work or fit it too well.  also this horn is so open i feel i need something to choke it a bit.  (This horn is scary open!  More free blowing than even the dual bore thayer edwards i used to play. It is a pedal monster!)

Anyway, i found an old bach 1 1/2 and viola! (I know its voila! ).  i do feel it may be a bit too tight but i am going to work with it some more.

Is there a mouthpiece in between a Bach 1 1/2 and a 1 1/4 (or Schilke 59)  How does the Schilke 58 compare to the bach 1 1/2?  I always felt the 59 and 1 1/4 were very similar; is the 58 similar to the 1 1/2?

The discussion of the Rath 1 1/2 interests me.  It sound like there are different versions, however.  Where can I get the specs on them?

ken k

Most post Mt Vernon Bach 1 1/2G's feel too tight (even some Mt Vernons do)and opening the throat is NOT the answer (I know, you didn't even mention it.. just a general warning),so I quite understand your feelings. Two of my Mt Vernons come in at 27.5 on the inner rim... wider than standard, and that makes a difference. I just recently opened out the rim on a 1 1/2G for a player in London and he is very happy with it (more to it than just the rim, but that's another story),so I agree that a little more space in the rim is a big help... but too much can easily lose the qualities that are so good in the 1 1/2G.
The Laskey 85MD is a very fine mouthpiece, but I think it is too much like your Schilke in this application. Talking of Schilke, the 58 feels (not saying it is) smaller on the rim than the 1 1/2G.
Greg Black's 1 1/2G is a little bigger, and plays well... the Parke Kaplan is a free blowing 1 1/2G size with clarity and bite, and the Rath B1 1/2 is bigger, and dark and projecting... with a slightly shorter shank that may well suit the Benge. You may like one of these three... the Black for a traditional 1 1/2G sound, the Parke for a more commercial sound and the Rath for a slightly more contemporary sound.
...or you could find a Mt Vernon 
Chris Stearn.

[ttf_slidejj]

Quote from: ken k on Sep 10, 2007, 08:42PM
The discussion of the Rath 1 1/2 interests me.  It sound like there are different versions, however.  Where can I get the specs on them?

ken k

The Rath 1-1/2 comes with standard and wide rim.  I have the wide rim version that blast designed but haven't tried the standard rim version.  Rath lists both as 27.4 MM inner rim but the W feels a tad bigger than some others in that range I've played; I measured 27.5 with my calipers but that could just be the way I measure.  It's very open down low but with that classic 1.5 ish sound.  I think some mpc in the 1.5ish range should tame a 290, they are different beasts.

[ttf_ken k]

Quote from: blast on Sep 11, 2007, 01:41AMGreg Black's 1 1/2G is a little bigger, and plays well... the Parke Kaplan is a free blowing 1 1/2G size with clarity and bite, and the Rath B1 1/2 is bigger, and dark and projecting... with a slightly shorter shank that may well suit the Benge. You may like one of these three... the Black for a traditional 1 1/2G sound, the Parke for a more commercial sound and the Rath for a slightly more contemporary sound.
...or you could find a Mt Vernon 
Chris Stearn.

Thank you Chris for the reply,
In describing the sound of the various 1 1/2G variants you mention a commercial sound (Parke)and a contemporary sound (Rath).  I would have considered a commercial sound to be a contemporary sound.

Please define what you mean when you say, commercial sound versus contemporary sound.

thanks, ken k

[ttf_blast]

Quote from: ken k on Sep 11, 2007, 11:40AMThank you Chris for the reply,
In describing the sound of the various 1 1/2G variants you mention a commercial sound (Parke)and a contemporary sound (Rath).  I would have considered a commercial sound to be a contemporary sound.

Please define what you mean when you say, commercial sound versus contemporary sound.

thanks, ken k

Ha ! I thought you might come back on those comments !
What do I mean ? Well, when I say commercial, I mean quite a bright sound with life and bite... west coast '60's and '70's if that means anything.
Contempory... modern orchestra/recording sound.. very projecting, dark and compact.
These are just trends of mouthpiece sound... the player will be the biggest effect with any setup, and this must always be remembered.
Chris Stearn.

[ttf_slidejj]

Quote from: blast on Sep 11, 2007, 01:44PMContempory... modern orchestra/recording sound.. very projecting, dark and compact.
These are just trends of mouthpiece sound... the player will be the biggest effect with any setup, and this must always be remembered.
Chris Stearn.

I'd say that sums up the Rath 1-1/2W sound trend.  I have my Edwards B454D-CR complete with two bells and slides where I can get a more broad/dark orchestral or snappy/compact commercial type of sound and the mouthpiece seems to work with either setup.  But I have played some mouthpieces that tend to sound one way no matter what I do.

[ttf_anonymous]

I think I've read most of this thread now... just wanted to add that a Denis Wick 1AL is a superb match to my Reynolds Contempora double-valve bass. I've been very happy with it and see no reason to change.

ElShaddai

[ttf_blast]

Quote from: ElShaddai on Sep 11, 2007, 05:58PMI think I've read most of this thread now... just wanted to add that a Denis Wick 1AL is a superb match to my Reynolds Contempora double-valve bass. I've been very happy with it and see no reason to change.

ElShaddai

The Wick 1AL is around 1 1/2G size.... there are two incarnations of the 1AL... the latest one being a copy of a Schilke 58 used by London bass 'bonist David Stewart. The players who helped develop the Contempora would have been playing mouthpieces of this size... but you know far more about that than me. All makes sense.
Chris Stearn.

[ttf_ElShaddai]

Quote from: blast on Sep 15, 2007, 12:56PMThe Wick 1AL is around 1 1/2G size.... there are two incarnations of the 1AL... the latest one being a copy of a Schilke 58 used by London bass 'bonist David Stewart. The players who helped develop the Contempora would have been playing mouthpieces of this size... but you know far more about that than me. All makes sense.
Chris Stearn.

Well, that would figure. I played a Schilke 58 all through college and then in civic orchestras afterward. Can't remember why I started the great mouthpiece search, but it probably had something to do with this forum...

As for Contempora players, according to Doug Yeo, Kahila was playing a Giardinelli 2G for most of his time in Boston. Ostrander was also in the 2G size range, if I recall correctly. Don't know about Louis Counihan at the Met Opera.

[ttf_blast]

Quote from: ElShaddai on Sep 15, 2007, 05:08PMWell, that would figure. I played a Schilke 58 all through college and then in civic orchestras afterward. Can't remember why I started the great mouthpiece search, but it probably had something to do with this forum...

As for Contempora players, according to Doug Yeo, Kahila was playing a Giardinelli 2G for most of his time in Boston. Ostrander was also in the 2G size range, if I recall correctly. Don't know about Louis Counihan at the Met Opera.

I told you that you knew more about Contempora history than me.... I bet the Giardinelli 2G was quite small.. probably smaller than a Bach 2G... the pictures of Ostrander that I have show something non-Bach.. possibly German from the outside shape. I know the Contempora is not so happy with big mouthpieces... been there, tried that. I remember taping some weight to the main tuning slide to try and help the balance and finding the horn played twice as good... just a thought.
Chris Stearn.

[ttf_modelerdc]

I had a Giardinelli 2G once and it was actually very close in size to my Mt. Vernon 2G, but the Giardinelli had a wider rim shape. I played the Giardinelli 1G for many years and it was only very slightly larger than my Mt. Vernon 1 1/2G, again with a wider rim contour. Also the 1G had a slightly more open Backbore, which I liked, and a slightly more V shaped cup, which I suspected gave it a dark but not big sound for its size.

[ttf_bonesmarsh]

I'll second the stats on the Giardinelli 1G.

My prof was brother-in-law to Gord Halberg, bass bonist of the Boston Symphony Orchestra for over a decade. My prof had one of Gord's spare mouthpieces-- a Giardinelli 1G personalized and stamped HALB1G. I always thought it said Hal Big, until I was set straight. It had a gold screw rim and it was fantastic. I spent a small fortune trying to get a Bach 1 1/2G to match it, or anything in the Schilke 59 size.

The closest I ever got was a gold plated Schilke 59 with a delrin rim, but in the process of making it the throat was a bit on the small size, and another player is on it now and its his prized mouthpiece.


I've no idea how the modern crap Giardinelli mouthpieces stack up...but a mid-70's 1G is out there with all of the magic in the world in it. For the record they are slightly shorter than a Bach 1 1/2G, and that places the throat of the mouthpiece closer to the leadpipe, sort of the same idea that George Roberts came up with when he designed the UMI George Roberts mouthpiece.

[ttf_Nobody]

Well, now I've moved to a 2G. Great mid-to-high register, very good low register, easy pedals, great sound. Easy to play, sounds good. I can blend with the tuba or the tenor trombones with very little effort. I might like something SLIGHTLY deeper, but this piece is great. Great sound, very flexible, easy to play. What's not to like?

[ttf_LetItSlide]

Ain't it cool when you find a mouthpiece you really like?

[ttf_anonymous]

It can go too far.  I play a 1-1/2G a lot of the time.  I've got maybe 13-15 of them, 3 Mt.V.'s.  I can make them all sound good.  I also have a couple other mouthpieces I like and play sometimes.  They sound good too.  It's the player.  the mouthpiece has to be good and fit the horn properly, beyond that ...

I recently toured Japan and played in some of the great concert halls they have over there.  I had some low G. Roberts type stuff to play, and I played the tour on my 1953 NY Bach and one of my Mt. V. 1-1/2G's.  The sound was everything I could have wanted.  Does that mean nothing has improved in the last 50 years or so?

Anyway, it's not so much the equipment as the person sitting behind it, in my opinion.

Paz

[ttf_blast]

Quote from: pazuni on Sep 21, 2007, 11:47PMIt can go too far.  I play a 1-1/2G a lot of the time.  I've got maybe 13-15 of them, 3 Mt.V.'s.  I can make them all sound good.  I also have a couple other mouthpieces I like and play sometimes.  They sound good too.  It's the player.  the mouthpiece has to be good and fit the horn properly, beyond that ...

I recently toured Japan and played in some of the great concert halls they have over there.  I had some low G. Roberts type stuff to play, and I played the tour on my 1953 NY Bach and one of my Mt. V. 1-1/2G's.  The sound was everything I could have wanted.  Does that mean nothing has improved in the last 50 years or so?

Anyway, it's not so much the equipment as the person sitting behind it, in my opinion.

Paz

Paz, you are of course, quite right..... the player is the one most important element.. by a long way... and practice the most important ingredient in any player's armoury.
That shouldn't prevent us talking about the smaller ingredients such as trombones and mouthpieces however.
 Has nothing improved in equipment in the last 50 years ?
 I'd say that the answer is yes and no. Go back even eighty years and you would find trombones with a sound and feel at least as good as todays instruments... but slides are now better and valves have without doubt been improved. Mouthpieces ? Far more choice now than 50 years ago, which is a good thing.... a whole area of super-large mouthpieces available that was not 50 years ago.. which is partly the reason for this thread... but I see no great strides in mouthpiece design that lead us to put our Mt Vernon Bachs away for good... quite the opposite, in fact, with old Bach pieces increasing in value as demand for them increases.
I'm glad to hear that you enjoy your Mt Vernon Bach 50B and 1 1/2G mouthpiece.... and here we have the central point of the thread... the equipment that was popular 50 years ago can still deliver the goods today... and in a slightly different way to some of the modern 'mega' gear.
The 1 1/2G helps the player deliver that classic sound... and in that size, the old Mt Vernons seem to still be more popular than anything else.
I'm not saying that we should all play on old equipment.. there are some truly fantastic instruments being made today... it's more that a large percentage of the bass trombone population have, in recent times, dismissed mouthpieces like the 1 1/2G as mere beginner bass mouthpieces, to be 'grown out of' as you develop. For many reasons, I think they are wrong... the 1 1/2G is just as serious a professional option as the bigger stuff.
Chris Stearn.

[ttf_blast]

By the way, Pazuni.... how did that Herrick mouthpiece work out ??
Chris Stearn.

[ttf_BGuttman]

Chris, your comments remind me of the discussions we have about the Bach 12C.  A lot of the younger players dismiss the 12C as a "kid's mouthpiece"; something for an 8-year old to use.

Still, there are some extremely fine players who use 12C sized pieces.  Erling Kroner for example.

I have several 1 1/2G sized pieces, including a Mt. Vernon (yes, I know I owe somebody some measurements on it).  When I haven't been playing bass for a while and I need to play it, I put in my Marcinkiewicz 3 or 2GR.  They give me great results.  When I did "Urinetown, the Musical" I played all the trombone parts on the 2GR and my King 7B.  Went from low C (double trigger) to high Bb with no problems at all.

[ttf_anonymous]

Bruce, I was just gonna comment along those lines . . . the similarities in the looks upon 1.5G and 12c. Now you went and done it, thank you
So I'll grab my MtVernon 12c, my Conn 6H and wander off for yet another gig subbing with the Tivoli Big Band. 1st? 2nd? 3rd? solos? No matter. My equipment is up to it!
later
erl

[ttf_anonymous]

Well of course it's interesting, and I've spent plenty of time talking equipment and trying things.  There is a tendency sometimes though, to lose perspective, and I'm sure some mouthpiece makers profit handsomely.

I would have to agree that there is a lot more equipment available today.  If I worked full-time in a symphony somewhere I might have to play different stuff than I play -- I'm not sure.  But I do know there is a lot of mythology and misinformation out there.

A lot of bass trombone players, in my view, play equipment too large.  Too large for two reasons, they can't really control it, and even if they practice diligently, the sound doesn't blend with the rest of the section.  In LA a lot of the tenor platers play 2B's and that size instrument, and 4th parts have middle and high register stuff to play too.

And larger doesn't mean a bigger sound.  Maybe that's the biggest myth.  And equipment won't make a person more musical, just more comfortable.

Chris, the Herrick was pretty good.  A lot of those Herricks I believe were one-offs that were a variation of 1-1/2G's.  It seems like I always go back to my 1-1/2G's.

It was interesting what you said about the "Heritage" series.  I tried one in a couple bands last week.  I was playing my old Bach and the bands were small to chamber jazz ensembles in fairly small rooms.  I got a number of very positive comments about the sound, without telling anyone about the mpc.  That Heritage series definitely has some interesting characteristics.  I'm waiting for an opportunity to play it in one of the louder power bands.

Enough from me for now,

Best,

Rick

[ttf_Dan H.]

Quote from: pazuni on Sep 22, 2007, 10:34AMAnd larger doesn't mean a bigger sound.  Maybe that's the biggest myth.
Nom it doesn't always mean a bigger sound, but for someone who can fill the mouthpiece, it generally does. On the other hand, I can agree that they can make a weak sound if you don't have the proper support to handle the big mouthpiece.

The general consensus on this thread is not to buy into hype, and play what works for you. Whether it is big or small, and it does the job - what does it matter?

[ttf_anonymous]

Does 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