Quote from: grub on Feb 25, 2009, 08:54AMAll of the thin rims you mention have different shapes as well as widths. The rim of the Yeo is thin to be sure, but is curved in such a way as to make the most out of what little width there is, same for the Laskeys and the GB.125. That gentile bite of the 1G is precisely what turns it into the dreaded cookie cutter. I'd call the Yeo, Laskeys (93, 95), and GB 1.25 more successful designs because of how they manage the rim, and cup shape, and throat, and backbore to create balanced designs. I feel that the 1G has few redeeming qualities, perhaps a good balance between the throat and cup shape, but there are clearly superior pieces out there.
That being said, there are still many players who make great sounds on the ol' Bach 1. My personal opinion is that could get the same results with less work by looking elsewhere.
Quote from: johngsteel on Feb 25, 2009, 11:59AMBut is it not the desired sound the result of the chops, the horn (bell, leadpipe, slide, valves, etc), and the mouthpiece?
Not all chops like the same mouthpiece design.
Not all horns like the same mouthpiece.
Quote from: GetzenBassPlayer on Feb 25, 2009, 11:51AMThat assumes those making the great sounds did not try other pieces. Everyone has different priorities and needs, hence so many differing opinions on what can be considered a good mouthpiece. If a player finds great results playing on a particular piece, it seems silly to say to that player that it is inferior.
As johngsteel suggests, different people may experience the same mouthpiece differently, and as GetzenBassPlayer suggests, that is not a reason to trash a mouthpiece.
I have played some version of a Bach 1G for roughly 20 years now. I have tried other pieces along the way and, in the end, found them wanting. That isn't to say they were poorly designed; rather, they simply struck a balance that was not the best balance for me, the instruments I play, and the venues where I do most of my work.
If, at any point during that time, I had found the 1G to be a "cookie cutter," it would have been long gone. Obviously, other people have experienced the 1G differently. In my own case, I believe the 1G rim has worked for me because its dimensions and shape put the points of maximum pressure on my face pretty much on a vertical axis above and below the lips, rather than more to the sides and on the lips. In this sense, I play rather more "in" the 1G than on it. I don't think I necesarily consciously approached the 1G in that manner at the outset, but at some point I realized that is what I do. Some time back, I believe it was Gabe Langfur and/or Chris Stearn who suggested that players on large diameter mouthpieces use more of a trumpet type of embouchure than those on smaller pieces. I have never particularly thought I was doing that, but perhaps there is a connection. In any event, the way I play and my jaw and facial structure combine to make the 1G rim the most comfortable and least fatiguing rim I have tried.
In a way, I do understand Grub's point about rim curvature. Ironically, however, the rims I have found the most fatiguing, and even downright dangerous, are wide rims that combine a very rounded contour with a very sharp bite. I imagine the theory behind such rims would be to combine flexibility with clarity of attack. The problem, at least for me, is that I tend to want to feel contact with the full rim, which, because of the rim curvature, leads to a lot of pressure, and the sharp bite does the rest...
I would like to bring all of this more back on topic, however. As several posters have noted recently, the title of this thread is "Who in their right mind plays a Bach 1 1/2G??" Perhaps I am reading too much into Chris's choice of words here, but I think it is significant that the title is not "Who...plays a Bach 1 1/2G, or a Laskey 85MD, or a Hammond 19BL, or a Wick 2AL, or a Schilke 58, etc. etc. etc?" As the thread has progressed, the discussion has often treated the Bach 1 1/2G as emblematic of all similarly sized mouthpieces, and indeed, Chris himself has spoken very favorably of some of them. Nevertheless, I would argue that there is much more to the Bach 1 1/2G than just its size. All the various facets of its design combine to produce a particular character of sound and particular challenges for the player.
I would contend (yet again) that among the larger mouthpieces I am familiar with, the Bach 1G shares more essential "Bachiness" with the Bach 1 1/2G than any of the others. Therefore, I would further contend that, if the Bach 1G is a poor design that has been superceded by more recent developments, so too is the Bach 1 1/2G, and indeed, all the other Bach mouthpieces.
And yet, so far at least, we do not hear people asking, "Who in their right mind plays a Bach 5G or a Bach 11C?", even though many of the newer makers certainly include those sizes in their offerings and at least some of them, presumably, employ the same design principles throughout their line.
I think this thread represents a particular case study of the larger question of what it means for equipment to sound dated. Sam Burtis had some interesting observations on this point not too long ago:
Sabutin, 12/28/08:
Quotethings change, and sometimes they change for the better. With modular equipment and a fine designer, older designs can be improved upon. Over the course of a several years of experimentation with Shires horns...and I have watched people like Jim Pugh and Dave Taylor go through much the same process with Edwards instruments, along with a bunch of other makers like Mick Rath who have enabled players to do much the same thing..., I have developed a .525 bore trigger horn and a .500 bore tenor that surpass...for me...the classic Elkhart 78H/79H and 6H models after which I modeled them. In fact, both of them are a little more Bach-like in some respects than the Conns. Why? I also played some fine Mt. Vernon/NY Bachs for some time...a 36/36B and a converted single bore 16, plus a great Williams 6 and a number of '30s Conn TIS horns as well. What I learned from all of those horns went into the assembling of what I am playing now, and as a result the horns that were their original models now play and feel rather dated to me.
Sabutin, 12/27/08:
Quote In all of the m'pce changes...in fact in all of the equipment changes overall...that I have ever made,. this principle of better playing equals better sound has held true in about 99.5% of the cases.
Now, I have had some experiences that are very much in line with what Sam is saying; I recall particularly one vintage instrument I tried that had a very appealing sound, but nevertheless had a certain coarseness and inconsistency about it that made it seem dated relative to a more refined and consistent instrument. So, I don't dispute that datedness can be a matter of technical inferiority, but I wonder if that is all it is. Moreover, I think the question is much more difficult with mouthpieces than horns. The fact that some of Sam's own mouthpiece choices (if memory serves) are vintage New York or Mount Vernon Bachs speaks to this. Chris's recent stainless steel experiment also suggests that, when it comes to mouthpieces, maybe the circle is not squared so easily after all. And that may be one reason this thread has continued as it has.
Dan Harris
) Your narratives provide a trail of breadcrumbs of thought. Because we have some idea of "what in the world" YOU were thinking we might not have to follow what for you were dead ends... or we might find a path that, for some of us, might NOT be a dead end! Can you appreciate the difference between what you wrote and writing, "I tried a Bach 2G and didn't like it. Then I tried an Olds and it didn't work for me. Then I tried a stainless piece and couldn't stand it. Then I tried a mayonaise covered whiz-bang and it almost worked but I couldn't keep it on my face."
b 
doesn't mean pedal Eb for us, it's not the fundamental harmonic of that lenght of tubing, the 8va bassa 
to