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

ttf_tbarh · Post by **ttf_tbarh** » Sun Jan 04, 2009 7:07 am

With stainless steel You can make thinner wall shanks (at the end) which means a smoother transition into the leadpipe,...less turbulence. I don`t know if that is a factor ,just guessing!!

tbarh

ttf_svenlarsson · Post by **ttf_svenlarsson** » Sun Jan 04, 2009 1:48 pm

QuoteKleinhammer did play 1 1/2g and the bigger stuff.

I meet Edward in Stockholm many years ago, he played Bach 1 ½ from the beginning of his bass trombone carrier, then he moved to bigger. When he was in Stockholm he played a bored out Schilke 60.

QuoteSpeaking about audience, I was at a concert many years ago and listen to a pro orchestra playing. I will not say what orchestra but it was not in Norway. The trombone group was playing so loud and I was thinking since it was holyday there maybe was not the "original group" but some students playing. They did ruin the hole concert but seems to be very proud.

Leif, var det i ett nära grannland?

That used to be a big problem in many Swedish orchestras, as well as in other countries.
I do think that is changing, the Swedish Radio Symphony Orchestras trombone section plays sometimes on 500, 525 and 547 bore to get a sound that is appropriate to the music.

Many players use smaller mouthpieces now then what was common 20 years ago.

Still, a colleague of mine plays bigger mouthpieces then I could think of for bass trombone, and sound good in all ranges!

I am testing G&W SS as well, played them on tenor some rehearsals and a recording, bass trombone in big band and symphony orch. In concersts and recording Tuba on symphony orch. consert.
The rims are for me much more comfy, they are well balanced, the SS does feel good on my lips. Have no idea about what the SS do to the sound.
I have a larger tenor piece as well for the 547 bore tenor, that one I have only tried in my practicing studio, it feels good.

ttf_savio · Post by **ttf_savio** » Sun Jan 04, 2009 3:59 pm

Svenne, I dont remember what orchestra it was. Or maybe I do but.... Not in Sweden but not so faraway from us. It was 25 years ago. I just remember even the trumpet section had no chance to get their sound through. The trombone section did prove that its possible to blow the walls of Jericho down. I was young then and did like to play loud as often I could but this concert did show there is a time for everything. I remember my teacher used to say that during a concert there should be maybe one little highlight where I should show what a trombone can do with decibel.

I hope I don't sound like a priest that want all to go to the 1 1/2 Svenne? I live in my little corner of the world and are not really in to the trombone world around. I play together with one cello, one singer and piano. My equipment suit very well in this group. I did play some in orchestra before but gave up the audition playing. I did really not feel I was the best and didn't want to wait many years between each audition.

This tread did just show me the possibility to get the sound I have been looking for all my life and it gave me a kick to practice more. Since I feel the hole music world with education and performance is getting better and better all the time I feel its to late for me to get into audition again. I have a job where I have the opportunity to play both in a funny ensemble and solo. There is a lot of teaching and no stress in our playing situation. So I go skiing and play football with my daughter without thinking on many of the demands there are in rest of the music world. I just don't follow the rest of the trombone world, I do my own little thing fareaway.

There is only one thing to say about the 1 1/2g, its a choice among many but have maybe been some neglected when the trend to make everything bigger started. This trend have maybe turned around like you say Svenne. We don't see many 10 1/2 inch bells and we see the 1 1/2g more and more again. The only people I see that is back in this bigger is better thing is young players on youtube.

The 1 1/2g fits in so well in my corner of the world and I just love playing it. Thats all.

Leif

ttf_johngsteel · Post by **ttf_johngsteel** » Tue Jan 06, 2009 2:28 pm

The Bach 1 1/2G plays very well in a standard bore bass bone. When I used it on a dual bore Getzen and Shire, it felt as if it did not fill the horn as well.

I then tries a 1 1/2 GM (larger back bore). Ahh! Much better! But it had a few issues with the single bore. Then, a 1 1/4 G and GM, and those horns started to light up, like my old Duo Gravis. The 1 1/4 models felt to big for the older single bore horns.

Maybe it was just the way those mouthpieces felt with those horns and the way I interacted with it...

My George Robers origional is gold plated. That plays pretty good in the newer, dual bore horns, but it rocks in my Duo Gravis!

ttf_CRWV · Post by **ttf_CRWV** » Wed Jan 07, 2009 9:13 am

I agree,

I picked up a friends big dual bore eddie the other night, plugged my 1.5G in, and was utterly disappointed. Sure its a great horn, but the system clearly was not geared toward a 1.5 ...

I felt like my kanstul was more freeblowing, with a single bore slide and (granted, very open) rotors.

ttf_blast · Post by **ttf_blast** » Thu Jan 15, 2009 4:21 pm

Some people may have noticed via the Minick thread, that my try-out of a certain Stainless Steel mouthpiece has come to an end. This happened before the Minick entered my life (two days before) and I am not about to give a destructive run down of why the Stainless mouthpiece was rejected.
What I will say is that this is the first time in my life that I trialled a mouthpiece that I didn't like at the first try, and I did that because it was SO different to anything I had ever played that I thought I should investigate it. It made all the things that I had always worked at easy... high and low... very loud... consistent attacks... a cold clarity.... but it made the easy stuff hard.... mid range.. mid dynamics... life in the sound... warmth... character...
It was indeed novel to have the challenges reversed, but in the end I felt that I had lost more than I gained... and I worried that the Rim shape might cause embouchure problems in the long term... it is so much against all that I had understood to be good.
Right after this, up popped the Minick, which ticks all the boxes for me.... and is a real lesson in mouthpiece design from a master.
The Stainless mouthpiece might just be the basis for something exceptional... but there are still very big issues there to resolve.
The Minick IS exceptional... and in my experience so far, represents the best take on the classic 1 1/2G that I have come across... I was three months trying the Stainless piece... and less than three minutes realizing that the Minick was very special.
Why is the Minick so good ???
Dunno... looks very ordinary... plays extraordinary...
The more you learn, the less you realise you know.

Chris Stearn

ttf_BassBoneFL · Post by **ttf_BassBoneFL** » Thu Jan 15, 2009 6:38 pm

Just to play Devil's advocate... Is the Minick REALLY that good? Perhaps certain characteristics which you have valued were so reduced by the Stainless piece that the Minick seem revelatory in comparison? Maybe the contrast would not be so great had you been playing your long cherished MV1.5G these past months?

Just a thought....

ttf_Ellrod · Post by **ttf_Ellrod** » Thu Jan 15, 2009 7:21 pm

Quote from: BassBoneFL on Jan 15, 2009, 06:38PMJust to play Devil's advocate... Is the Minick REALLY that good? Perhaps certain characteristics which you have valued were so reduced by the Stainless piece that the Minick seem revelatory in comparison? Maybe the contrast would not be so great had you been playing your long cherished MV1.5G these past months?

Just a thought....

You'll be wanting to move that Bach MV, I guess, eh Chris? Just keep me in mind.

Your pal,

Ellrod

ttf_boneagain · Post by **ttf_boneagain** » Thu Jan 15, 2009 8:37 pm

Chris,
Is that Minick like the one the Ferguson V (for Mount Vernon) is patterned after, or an unmarked variant?
When I was downsizing from my old custom Storks I got a Ferguson V. Liked it better than the Rath B1 1/2W down low, but didn't like the other compromises in other places. Funny thing, though.... just shaved the soup strainer 'cuz I was curious if it would impact my very bottom range. Suddenly I was able to play the Bb two octaves below the one in the bass cleff, and actually articulate the C above that. And suddenly the Ferguson V involved a lot fewer compromises. Still takes more air than the Rath, but I think I'll be succumbing to the maddness again for at least a bit.
Good luck with the Minick!!!

ttf_savio · Post by **ttf_savio** » Thu Jan 15, 2009 9:41 pm

If I understand BassboneFL right he ask a important question which I also have been thinking a lot on. If one player have played one type of mouthpiece for a very long time, say many many years, could it then be impossible or take very long time to adopt to another type? This was bad English but do you see the point. If you Chris have played a wide rim Vernon for years it could be nearly impossible to adopt to a thin rim? You say something about it here:

Quote from: blast on Jan 15, 2009, 04:21PM... and I worried that the Rim shape might cause embouchure problems in the long term... it is so much against all that I had understood to be good.

Chris Stearn

The rim shape on the Stainless Steel was maybe to thin for you since you are used to a wider Vernon rim. I just know by my self it would be difficult to adopt to a wide rim because I like thinner rims. When I try wide rims my embouchure get some disturbed. The rim of a regular Bach 1 1/2g seems to fit exactly to my mouth. Flat and not to wide.

So you don't have to send it to me afterall.

I know I wouldn't like it. It was like Walt did say. We just want all the best for you and wanted to spare you the disappointment when honeymoon is over

Well, just another silly joke but can you be so sure after just some days?

But my point is not to go so faraway from the rim shape we like and are used to. Thin or wide. It can disturb a long time built embouchure.

By the way.....how is the sound compared to a Bach? And hope you get a nice time with this Mimick mouthpiece. Congratulate Chris

Leif

ttf_blast · Post by **ttf_blast** » Fri Jan 16, 2009 12:46 am

Quote from: boneagain on Jan 15, 2009, 08:37PMChris,
Is that Minick like the one the Ferguson V (for Mount Vernon) is patterned after, or an unmarked variant?
When I was downsizing from my old custom Storks I got a Ferguson V. Liked it better than the Rath B1 1/2W down low, but didn't like the other compromises in other places. Funny thing, though.... just shaved the soup strainer 'cuz I was curious if it would impact my very bottom range. Suddenly I was able to play the Bb two octaves below the one in the bass cleff, and actually articulate the C above that. And suddenly the Ferguson V involved a lot fewer compromises. Still takes more air than the Rath, but I think I'll be succumbing to the maddness again for at least a bit.
Good luck with the Minick!!!

It's an unmarked variant... not at all like the Ferguson V (which I have owned in the past)...the cup sides run almost parallel for half it's depth... so it's very much not a V cup. I didn't like the Ferguson V when I tried it.

Chris Stearn

ttf_blast · Post by **ttf_blast** » Fri Jan 16, 2009 1:11 am

Quote from: BassBoneFL on Jan 15, 2009, 06:38PMJust to play Devil's advocate... Is the Minick REALLY that good? Perhaps certain characteristics which you have valued were so reduced by the Stainless piece that the Minick seem revelatory in comparison? Maybe the contrast would not be so great had you been playing your long cherished MV1.5G these past months?

Just a thought....

Fair question....I have kept in touch with the MVs over the past three months... just the occasional quick blow every few weeks... both narrow and wide rim versions... I needed to check where the G&W was taking my sound... and these were my obvious reference, so when I decided that my Stainless voyage had come to an end, the wide rim MV was still my ideal sound... but it still (of course)didn't match my latest Holton 169. Trying lots of different mouthpieces against the MV, together with a second set of trusted ears, I found that a wide rim Roberts SO came closest in terms of sound, and seemed to match the Holton OK... I was about to swap onto it, then the Minick turned up.
Is it SO MUCH better ????? Well, if we accept that small things are a big thing, yes it is a lot better.... it sounds very like the MV wide rim at low and medium dynamics, but holds together better at the loud end and is the first heavy top mouthpiece that still rings for me.... it's even more complex than the Bach, which I thought was hardly possible and most of all, the feel is just superb... you just want to play it. I'll know for sure a few months down the line, but it is pretty amazing now.

Chris Stearn

ttf_blast · Post by **ttf_blast** » Fri Jan 16, 2009 1:25 am

Quote from: savio on Jan 15, 2009, 09:41PMIf I understand BassboneFL right he ask a important question which I also have been thinking a lot on. If one player have played one type of mouthpiece for a very long time, say many many years, could it then be impossible or take very long time to adopt to another type? This was bad English but do you see the point. If you Chris have played a wide rim Vernon for years it could be nearly impossible to adopt to a thin rim? You say something about it here:

The rim shape on the Stainless Steel was maybe to thin for you since you are used to a wider Vernon rim. I just know by my self it would be difficult to adopt to a wide rim because I like thinner rims. When I try wide rims my embouchure get some disturbed. The rim of a regular Bach 1 1/2g seems to fit exactly to my mouth. Flat and not to wide.

So you don't have to send it to me afterall.

I know I wouldn't like it. It was like Walt did say. We just want all the best for you and wanted to spare you the disappointment when honeymoon is over

Well, just another silly joke but can you be so sure after just some days?

But my point is not to go so faraway from the rim shape we like and are used to. Thin or wide. It can disturb a long time built embouchure.

By the way.....how is the sound compared to a Bach? And hope you get a nice time with this Mimick mouthpiece. Congratulate Chris

Leif

You are right to talk about rim shape... it's important. The G&W has quite a wide rim... similar to my wide rim MV in width, but it is very different in profile. I was always told that the high point on a rim should be toward the inner edge, so a mouthpiece that has a flat top rim and therefore effectively two high points is a very different concept... and I find articulations hard on a very rounded inner rim. These new type rims seem to work for some of the very best players around, but I will not buy the concept myself... too set in my ways.
Can you swap between wide and narrow ? Anything is possible, but you do get more comfortable with one or the other over a period of years... and you find which gives you the best mix of qualities. I prefer a wider rim, simple as that.

Chris Stearn

ttf_tbarh · Post by **ttf_tbarh** » Fri Jan 16, 2009 1:42 am

I see a pattern here regarding the difference between V-shaped and Bowl-shape cups.. I find that for ME the bowl shaped cups (or cups with big volume relative to the cup depth) givs the most complex and interesting sound whereas the more V-shaped cups has a more efficient blow.. Maybe Minnick found a smart way to balance the rim contour/throat entrance/bore/backbore/weight in a way that increased efficiency also..
reading the rethoric in the website of the producer of the stainless in question ,they seems very wired on efficiency of blow and that the pieces are very "practical" in use. I suppose that producers of stainless pieces has this in mind to a great extent..?

...However; I am not sure that the material is to blaim.. I am pretty confident that stainless pieces can be balanced in a way that they also will be a contender soundwise.. a little less theory and a little more trial and error perhaps ?

A big design advantage with the stainless is that You can shave the backbore much more towards the end making a bigger hole with a freer blow with less turbulence.. This can also be balanced with the throatsize etc..

tbarh

ttf_tbarh · Post by **ttf_tbarh** » Fri Jan 16, 2009 2:34 am

Quote from: boneagain on Jan 15, 2009, 08:37PMChris,
Is that Minick like the one the Ferguson V (for Mount Vernon) is patterned after, or an unmarked variant?
When I was downsizing from my old custom Storks I got a Ferguson V. Liked it better than the Rath B1 1/2W down low, but didn't like the other compromises in other places. Funny thing, though.... just shaved the soup strainer 'cuz I was curious if it would impact my very bottom range. Suddenly I was able to play the Bb two octaves below the one in the bass cleff, and actually articulate the C above that. And suddenly the Ferguson V involved a lot fewer compromises. Still takes more air than the Rath, but I think I'll be succumbing to the maddness again for at least a bit.
Good luck with the Minick!!!

I suppose my english fail me here!
What exactly do You mean by; "shaving the soup strainer" ? ....are You sure Youre allowed to say that here?

tbarh

ttf_blast · Post by **ttf_blast** » Fri Jan 16, 2009 2:45 am

I am sure Stainless can work as a material. Shapes are the most important aspect... and the playing qualities are in the hands of the designer. In the end, I want different things to Ivan. I expect, given time and effort, he could make me a fine mouthpiece... but he might only sell one of them.

Chris Stearn

ttf_johngsteel · Post by **ttf_johngsteel** » Fri Jan 16, 2009 10:38 am

So the thread has changed away from "who plays a Back 1 1/2G" to the material of a mouthpiece. Still very interesting.

If you had a choice between standard silver, stainless, or gold plate for the exact same mouthpiece, what would you prefer? I think that would be a good polling thread....

That would be if the one mouthpiece in question could be triplicated without a flaw...

ttf_blast · Post by **ttf_blast** » Fri Jan 16, 2009 10:43 am

Quote from: johngsteel on Jan 16, 2009, 10:38AMSo the thread has changed away from "who plays a Back 1 1/2G" to the material of a mouthpiece. Still very interesting.

If you had a choice between standard silver, stainless, or gold plate for the exact same mouthpiece, what would you prefer? I think that would be a good polling thread....

That would be if the one mouthpiece in question could be triplicated without a flaw...

All the mouthpieces being talked about are in the 1 1/2G size range... and Larry Minick was said to have based his small designs on a Mt Vernon 1 1/2G, so I don't think we are too far off topic.
If you could make three identical mouthpieces in different metals it would be VERY interesting... but there is no point in starting a poll on what would be pure conjecture.

Chris Stearn

ttf_johngsteel · Post by **ttf_johngsteel** » Fri Jan 16, 2009 10:46 am

Point well taken.

So is there a preference for material for a mouthpiece?

When I had a mustach, I would get irratation on my upper lip with a silver mouthpiece. When I had one gold plated, the irratation went away. I then had all my "production" mouthpieces (tuba and bass bone) gold plated. It was more comfortable...

ttf_blast · Post by **ttf_blast** » Fri Jan 16, 2009 10:48 am

I really liked the feel of Stainless on the face... after that it is gold... but as I play with a dry embouchure that's hardly surprising.

Chris Stearn

ttf_anonymous · Post by **ttf_anonymous** » Sat Jan 17, 2009 6:16 pm

With as much that has been said in this thread with varying instruments and how they sound and respond to 1.5G pieces and their variants, I am wondering if any of you guys have tried or stuck with a Bach 1.5G on a euphonium. I tried it recently and am FLOORED by how good it seems for me! The tone is dark and rich, with a very accessible high register and a booming low register. For the newer German made Besson euphs, I haven't found anything better as of yet (tried numerous Wick 3s, 4s, SM pieces, and variations of those including UK-made Alliance pieces, but the Bach 1.5G seems to be the best I've seen so far). Up until I tried this setup this past week, I had never played a 1.5G...being primarily a tenor bone and euphonium doubler. Both the standard and megatone 1.5Gs seem to be working very well for me on the euphonium, I slightly prefer the megatone at this point.

So, any of you euphers or doublers ever play a 1.5G on the euphonium?

ttf_WaltTrombone · Post by **ttf_WaltTrombone** » Sat Jan 17, 2009 6:18 pm

Quote from: boneuphtoner on Jan 17, 2009, 06:16PM
So, any of you euphers or doublers ever play a 1.5G on the euphonium?

Close; I use a Schilke 60 in my Yamaha 641.

ttf_MoominDave · Post by **ttf_MoominDave** » Sun Jan 18, 2009 5:55 am

I have used a 1.5G for brass band euphonium playing (all Besson Sovereign) in the past. Two reasons why I don't now:
i) The G cup produces too 'trombony' a sound for my taste.
ii) It's too much like hard work - I find the 2G rimsize generally more appropriate.

Now I'm happy with an SM3 - or sometimes an SM2 if I've been playing the euph regularly, and that harder work for a broader tone quality feels a worthwhile compromise.

ttf_savio · Post by **ttf_savio** » Fri Jan 23, 2009 11:41 am

I'm not sure what euphonium players in Norway play on but I have seen one with a Denis Wick 3al and he did sound very nice. Not like a tuba, not like a trombone. I think the sound was meaty and clear at the same time.

I have one question again and hope you don't feel I post to much.

When choosing mouthpiece is it possible to think to much on the sound and forget all the other aspects like: play secure, comfort, and so on. Thats not the right words but I begin to think I'm to "hang up" in the sound. And in general thinking to much on mouthpieces. And to find exactly the right one.

I'm happy I found the way to get core and focus in my sound which have been problem for me before. The Bach I play is exactly the sound I want. its very comfortable but I have to be in very good shape to play it correct. I must warm up the right way and be very consentrated on playing it the right way. When I do so all is fine. Walt did say I should practice and use time to get the Bach work. When I think about my old teacher which have been playing the DW 2al all his life and have the sound I always wanted, I think he is right. But I sometimes have limits in my practise time because of teaching. Then I start thinking.....maybe another one....especially 09.00 in the morning when doing school concerts.

I should maybe be happy and force my self to forget it all. Do the best I can, play the Bach and forget all about mouthpieces.

Sorry my problems which maybe not are problems. Maybe a kick behind is the solution. Do I think to much on the ultimate mouthpiece? When writing this I see what the answear is........stop fooling around and do your work is what my father would say.

Leif
(the spell check didnt work as usual)

ttf_savio · Post by **ttf_savio** » Fri Jan 23, 2009 1:39 pm

My above post was maybe some unclear or confusing.

Very short I do believe we can be to "hang up" in equipment. Chris did say some time ago 2% equipment and the rest is to make music.

I begin to think Christine had a little point in her only and maybe last post in this tread.

Why do we(I) bother so much about mouthpieces? Is it right to do so?

Leif

ttf_blast · Post by **ttf_blast** » Fri Jan 23, 2009 4:10 pm

We bother because we care... I hope. If we bother because we think we can find an easy way to get results, we will always be disappointed.... it's the connection between us and the horn.. therefore it is more personal than any other part of our equipment.
Some people just pick a well known model and set about perfecting their end of the business.. others search constantly.
Human nature... there is no right and wrong.
Now that I am not using the G&W I have started messing around with it... already improved the problem areas... I bet it can be made to really work with a bit of metal off here and there... or it might turn into a paperweight.
Deep joy,

Chris Stearn

ttf_savio · Post by **ttf_savio** » Fri Jan 23, 2009 4:33 pm

Quote from: blast on Jan 23, 2009, 04:10PMIf we bother because we think we can find an easy way to get results, we will always be disappointed....

Chris Stearn

I believe so Chris. But I'm not so interested in what works for you Chris, I'm interested in what works for me.

Quote from: blast on Jan 23, 2009, 04:10PM
Human nature... there is no right and wrong.

Chris Stearn

There is right and wrong. But people like me should not know about it. I mean there is to many choices to handle. Before there was three choices and today?

What the young people need is a guide in this jungle. We all need it.

Leif

ttf_savio · Post by **ttf_savio** » Fri Jan 23, 2009 7:52 pm

Sam`s guide would be use what works. And he his right. Don't look what the name or size on your mouthpiece is. Don't look what other players use.

Don't listen what great players like or dislike. George Roberts did play a Bach 1 1/2, Randall Hawes did play a Bach 1G. Who was in their right mind? Both of them of course or maybe none of them? And so it goes on. My favourite bass trombone player play a Schilke 59. I think you all know who he is. I cant use it but nothing wrong with a Schilke 59 no matter what.

We have professional players here like Gabe, Svenne, Tobbe, and Harold and many more. They play bigger stuff. Is it wrong? Of course not. If you can handle it. If you cant its wrong.

The truth is what Sam say: Use what works.

Chris has asked a question that all bass trombonist care about. The Bach 1 1/2G. The mother of all bass trombone mouthpieces. If you read carefully all mouthpiece makers have the word; based on a MT Vernon Bach 1 1/2g. There are some who don't do it and thats Hammond, Schilke and Warburton.

Some will say Denis Wick but his mouthpieces are based on both Schilke and Bach. Ferguson is Bach. All mouthpieces are based on Schilke and Bach. Who can tell us what is the best??? No one is the answear. I got an email from a top player who still play the Schilke 59 tonight. In my eyes he is the most interesting and musical bass trombone player ever. He play a regular Schilke 59.

DDDUUUUHH.

Chris did get up a important question. Is the Bach 1 1 /2g a mouthpiece to consider today?

After nearly 50 pages we can say yes.

Chris have done a queston that we all care about. Our mother.

The truth is Chris: All mouthpieces can work. There is only one rule I can make a sense out of: Its Sam`s: Use what works.

There is important to make a point of the 1 1/2g. And after so many pages it is a mouthpiece we all have a connection to.

What Chris ask for is: Have this mouthpiece something to do do in the year of 2009?

I believe the answear is yes.

But not for everyone. That must be very clear. I believe Chris already told so.

Let me ask a question: What would be most interesting to listen? Someone playing a tuba concert with a 1 1/2g or someone with 60 ????

Leif

ttf_nopos · Post by **ttf_nopos** » Sat Jan 24, 2009 9:52 am

Just noticed on the website of renowned studio bass trombonist Paul Faulise that he plays a modified Vincent Bach 1 1/2G shaved shank - .290 hole - bored-out back bore. Interestingly this seems to match well with the later designs of George Roberts. I believe both his Conn GR and the later Kanstul had dimensions similar to a 1.5 but had a shaved shank and possibly also a larger hole/backbore. Many players seem to prefer the sound of the original 1.5 but at the same time find it to be hard to play. Anyone here that plays / have tried similar or other modifications to a 1.5G? How did it turn out? success / failure?

ttf_GetzenBassPlayer · Sat Jan 24, 2009 10:19 am

Quote from: savio on Jan 23, 2009, 07:52PM
Let me ask a question: What would be most interesting to listen? Someone playing a tuba concert with a 1 1/2g or someone with 60 ????

Leif

That depends on who is doing the playing

Mr. Vernon sounded pretty good on a 60, as does Dr. Denson on a 1.5 size piece.

ttf_tbarh · Post by **ttf_tbarh** » Sat Jan 24, 2009 11:09 am

Quote from: GetzenBassPlayer on Jan 24, 2009, 10:19AMThat depends on who is doing the playing

Mr. Vernon sounded pretty good on a 60, as does Dr. Denson on a 1.5 size piece.

Dr.Denson ?

Tromboneplaying rap artist ?

tbarh

ttf_svenlarsson · Post by **ttf_svenlarsson** » Sat Jan 24, 2009 11:18 am

Quote from: nopos on Jan 24, 2009, 09:52AMJust noticed on the website of renowned studio bass trombonist Paul Faulise that he plays a modified Vincent Bach 1 1/2G shaved shank - .290 hole - bored-out back bore. Interestingly this seems to match well with the later designs of George Roberts. I believe both his Conn GR and the later Kanstul had dimensions similar to a 1.5 but had a shaved shank and possibly also a larger hole/backbore. Many players seem to prefer the sound of the original 1.5 but at the same time find it to be hard to play. Anyone here that plays / have tried similar or other modifications to a 1.5G? How did it turn out? success / failure?

Re: What is significant about the length of the mouthpiece stem?
« Reply #15 on: Jul 23, 2008, 07:47AM »

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I did some experiments in the 70:th with the help of George Struccel.
One thing we did was probably if I understand you right the thing you are asking about.
We shortened a couple mouthpieces, turned the shank down to fit further in the lead pipe, and opened up the back bore.
So more of the stem went into the horn, fitting the lead pipe snugly and had a faster back bore.
The result was a faster response, somewhat brighter than the original.
I played on one those pieces a couple of years, used it on at least a couple of hundred recordings and concerts.
Actually I believe the George Roberts Kanstull mouthpieces are done this way.

Is this what you are asking about?

(we destroyed lots mouthpieces, some of was great mouthpieces to begin with )

Logged

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
svenne

ttf_BassBoneFL · Post by **ttf_BassBoneFL** » Sat Jan 24, 2009 11:34 am

Quote from: tbarh on Jan 24, 2009, 11:09AMDr.Denson ?

Tromboneplaying rap artist ?
Aren't they the pajamas with the attached slippers?

ttf_slideorama · Post by **ttf_slideorama** » Sat Jan 24, 2009 11:49 am

Quote from: nopos on Jan 24, 2009, 09:52AMJust noticed on the website of renowned studio bass trombonist Paul Faulise ...

http://pfmusicco.com/index.html

Check out that discography.

ttf_nopos · Post by **ttf_nopos** » Sat Jan 24, 2009 12:20 pm

Quote from: svenlarsson on Jan 24, 2009, 11:18AMI did some experiments in the 70:th with the help of George Struccel.
We shortened a couple mouthpieces, turned the shank down to fit further in the lead pipe, and opened up the back bore.
The result was a faster response, somewhat brighter than the original.
Actually I believe the George Roberts Kanstull mouthpieces are done this way.
Is this what you are asking about?
svenne

Thank you svenne. Thats interesting. Must have been lots of fun back in the 70s with Struccel. I remember my teacher used to play a Wick 2AL that was opened up a little by Struccel. Also his old Holton 180 had custom in-line valves by Struccel. I believe he had the work done when working in stockholm in the late 70s.

ttf_savio · Post by **ttf_savio** » Sun Jan 25, 2009 2:00 pm

I did try just for fun to open one of my Bach mouthpiece. The one I didn't like. It was garbage after I did it. And it was not much I did change it. I also have an old Conn Roberts but didn't like it. The throat is very very big.

I got my Shires Vintage 1 1/2g from Slidebone.com and didn't have so much believe. But I was surprised. It was just "bang" from first blow. Its nearly the same rim so it did feel good from 1st note. The difference in sound is not big. When I hit the Bach right it have a very big compact colourful sound. If I didn't hit it right it could get me some small "glithses" here and there. The Shires have about the same sound but is more forgiving overall. I have a good feeling inside: yes, this is it. I have the sound I want, I have the attack, I have a secure feeling and a nice legato. Its more even in sound from top to low.

This is of course very subjective because I live in a pink sky right know, but I have a strong feeling I just found "it" So its time to forget it all and start practice to make better music, not practice to see if the mouthpiece works.

Leif

ttf_poozer · Post by **ttf_poozer** » Thu Jan 29, 2009 12:57 pm

Seems many manufacturers try to make gear that sounds like the classic stuff, but just works a bit better, with more reliable quaity control.

Rath, Faxx and Greg Black(?) recreate nice Mt Vernon pieces. Steve Ferguson does his Minick copies. Greenhoe and Rath make instruments like the old Elkhart Conns and Mt Vernon Bachs.

Comes back to the WHICH 1.5G issue. Who in their right mind plays a 1.5G? Anyone who's found a really good one probably, although the search for that special NY Mt Vernon gold special wonderpiece will relieve you of your right mind.

ttf_savio · Post by **ttf_savio** » Fri Jan 30, 2009 9:47 am

Maybe Poozer is right. The 1 1/2g can make us go nuts. Hehe....well then I'm in the danger zone

But I have some hope with this shires vintage. I think its more difficult to find the right 1 1/2g than a right 60 size.

Leif

ttf_Bellend · Post by **ttf_Bellend** » Wed Feb 04, 2009 2:58 pm

Quote from: savio on Jan 30, 2009, 09:47AMMaybe Poozer is right. The 1 1/2g can make us go nuts. Hehe....well then I'm in the danger zone

But I have some hope with this shires vintage. I think its more difficult to find the right 1 1/2g than a right 60 size.

Leif

I'm curious what makes you think that?

BellEnd

ttf_kbiggs · Post by **ttf_kbiggs** » Thu Feb 05, 2009 3:51 pm

Here's a thought about different brands of similarly-sized mpcs, in this case the Bach 1 1/2G: perhaps they are analogous to different recordings of the same piece.

If you have several recordings of one piece, they all differ from each other. Yes, they're the same piece of music, whether it's Tchaik 4, Sibelius 2, Debussy's La Mer, Bruckner 4, Pictures at an Exhibition, etc. . . . However, each recording is by a different group of people. Sometimes it's the same orchestra but 20 years later, or with a different conductor, and sometimes it's the same conductor but with a different orchestra. All the recordings play the same music, but the end result--the product for the listener, that magical moment captured in time--is different in each case. Not better, just different (excluding clear performance errors like chips, clams, etc.). Some prefer Maestro Smith's version of Davis's Symphony in QB with the PDQ Orchestra, while other prefer Maestro Jones with the XYZ Orchestra, and still other prefer Maestro Jones' older recording with XYZ Orchestra from 20 years ago.

If you listen to Stravinsky conduct Stravinsky, you're in for a sonic and interpretive experience. You might not like it, but it might grow on you. If you play a Mt. Vernon 1 1/2 G, you might not like it at first, but it might grow on you. You might find some qualities in the 1 1/2 G mpc that you like, but decide that you want a slightly different rim shape, so you try a Warburton, a Greg Black, a Rath . . . choose your maker. Just so, you might find that you prefer a different interpretation of that Stravinsky work, whether it's conducted by Solti, Karajan, Reiner, Chailly, Boulez . . . choose your conductor . . . or Cleveland, London, Chicago, Vienna, Berlin . . . choose your orchestra.

Not to stretch the analogy too far, but listening to different recordings is in some ways similar to the way that different shapes and characteristics affect the tendency of any particular mpc to tend to sound a certain way, whether it's the rim shape, cup depth or shape or volume, the shape of the backbore and throat, or anything else. What you play not only has to be comfortable (it has to feel good), but it should allow you to re-create the "sound in your head" (thanks to Charlie Vernon for the phrase) more easily and allow you to play the music in front of you. It's like Chris said a page or two ago: "A mouthpiece doesn't do anything. It allows you to do things."

So, pick your piece. None are right or wrong or good or bad (unless it's clearly a manufacturing error in the mpc), just different. Some work better for certain individuals or different musical applications.

I hope this analogy works for somebody . . . besides me . . .

ttf_blast · Post by **ttf_blast** » Fri Feb 06, 2009 2:14 am

Nicely put Kenneth. There are some quite good variations on the 1 1/2G theme, though many say that none of the modern versions match the classic Mt Vernon example. I think what Savio is saying (correct me if I am wrong sav) is that there are now many great choices in the large bass mouthpiece world that are streets ahead of the early examples... there has been a focus of interest on this size for the last 20-30 years and the development in bigger sizes is real and impressive... but in the 1 1/2G size area there has been little development and no overall progress on Bach's original offerings... and the smaller mouthpieces seem to be more fussy anyway. The Minick I was recently sent is the only mouthpiece in this size that I have come across that offers me a better all round package than my Mt Vernons... and this is a one-off, made my a genius who is now dead.... and it has an odd rim that would not suit everyone.
Chris Stearn

ttf_savio · Post by **ttf_savio** » Sat Feb 07, 2009 1:48 am

What you say illustrate it very good Kenneth. The first real bass trombone sound I did listen was George Roberts in 1981. That sound is burned in my ears. And after this I was standing with my teacher that also had a kind of Premru sound. And in orchestra he have/had a big broad orchestra sound. Today I like nearly everything I listen. So many nice players everywhere. But the sound in my head is still the George Roberts sound. I cant help it but thats the sound I always wanted to get close to. The 1 1/2g helps me to get closer to this sound.

I believe like Chris say most mouthpiece makers focus most on the 60 size. Some of them don't even make a 1 1/2g. All the pro´s seem to play the MT Vernon. I never tried one but believe they are special. They are more "hand made" by one good mouthpiece maker long time ago. And if I read Sam´s post right they was made for the professionals in mind. If there will be a MT Vernon on Ebay you can give up guys. I will use the Norwegian oil money to get it. (Problem is no Norwegian knows where this money is)

Today the focus is on the 60 size. Some profiled players even make their own All the 1 1/2g today are made to make it more easy to play. Thats a good thing but I feel they lack some of the personality a good Bach 1 1/2g gives. I don't say the new ones are bad. But I should wish the mouthpiecemakers focus more in this size like they do in 60 size. Think a Yeo 1 1/2g, or a Laskey 1 1/2g

But don't misunderstand me people. I'm open for everything and really like to listen most players of today. And there are also new exiting players all the time like Stefan Schulz that sounds amazing. Of course I like to listen.

But for me the sound a long way back in my head is George Roberts. I cant help it. I cant get it with a 59 size, but the 1 1/2g did bring me very close. (Or anyway much closer)

Leif

ttf_boneagain · Post by **ttf_boneagain** » Sat Feb 07, 2009 7:23 am

I think the last couple "player's choice" posts elegantly refute earlier accusations that this thread is as much a big bash of non-1 1/2G sizes as cogitations on the subject line. I agree with Chris that Kenneth has put it quite nicely!

An important corollary of what Kenneth writes is that you can't be all things to all people. Each of the cited orchestras actually probably COULD sound like the other (seems to be sort of happening today, unfortunately.) But the great reputations were made we we could COUNT on each having a different sound... its own distinctive sound.

This gets into the "right mind" part of the question. How many of us could be the "Rich Little" of trombone style without going nuts? And no matter how good Rich Little is (and I happen to think he's fantastic) how many of us would go to hear him do a whole concert of Frank Sinatra? On the other hand, if all we want are samples of Sinatra, Torme, Armstrong, and a couple other singers, Rich is quite a bargain!

From everything I've seen, a trombonist has to be able to sound differently to make a living. As Chris has noted here, and other great bass trombonists elsewhere, we serve the music poorly if we use the same sound on Palestrina as for Bruckner. But how far can we go beyond that can we go and stay in our right minds? Certainly, at the bottom of all the required sonic and stylistic flexibility we need some core (the REAL Rich Little, so to speak) we can use as the starting point for the required variations.

What are our starting points? How much of our time would we most like to spend there? In what directions do we want/need our flexiblity to range?

There is no question that many players in their right minds do NOT find the 1 1/2G family helpful in answering those questions. It's a good thing the other size and style families exist for them. And, for them, they would NOT be in their right minds to force themselves into the 1 1/2G mold. By the same token, for players like me who find the 1 1/2G family to provide the best range of flexibility balanced against effort to be flexible, we would be out of our minds to use difference MP families just because they are stylish.

I think of how orchestral sound has become less distinctive in the last forty or so years. I hope the options for bass trombone sound variation take the opposite path in the next forty!

ttf_blast · Post by **ttf_blast** » Fri Feb 20, 2009 2:38 pm

Perhaps people are losing the ability to make these smaller size bass mouthpieces work... at least in the student community. The bigger mouthpiece seems to be an almost universal answer to low register and projection problems. Just a thought to fire up the troops.....

Chris Stearn.

ttf_Burgerbob · Post by **ttf_Burgerbob** » Fri Feb 20, 2009 2:50 pm

Quote from: blast on Feb 20, 2009, 02:38PMPerhaps people are losing the ability to make these smaller size bass mouthpieces work... at least in the student community. The bigger mouthpiece seems to be an almost universal answer to low register and projection problems. Just a thought to fire up the troops.....

Chris Stearn.

This does seem like the case, at least in my limited area. I do have problems with low register sometimes, but it's usually because I haven't been playing as much as I should have been on my bass- maybe the large mouthpiece is seen as an alternative to practice?

ttf_CRWV · Post by **ttf_CRWV** » Fri Feb 20, 2009 5:22 pm

Quote from: blast on Feb 20, 2009, 02:38PMPerhaps people are losing the ability to make these smaller size bass mouthpieces work... at least in the student community. The bigger mouthpiece seems to be an almost universal answer to low register and projection problems. Just a thought to fire up the troops.....

Chris Stearn.

I think it has to do with the width of the airstream. I think (this is a common issue in singing) that the tendency is to think big and force a whole shitload of air, it'll get you more initially than fighting with the more traditional method, and you can play loud from the get go, which is a common issue with early students having to deal with ensemble situations.

ttf_savio · Post by **ttf_savio** » Fri Feb 20, 2009 6:48 pm

I believe its easy to think this way for young people starting to play the bass trombone:
Quote from: blast on Feb 20, 2009, 02:38PMThe bigger mouthpiece seems to be an almost universal answer to low register and projection problems.
Chris Stearn.

I think its an illusion. And if the young people start in this end when learning bass trombone its very wrong. What about learning the basics? Legato, staccato, control dynamic, and learning to make musical phrases? You cant learn this things when the focus is in making the low register as loud as possible?

No matter mouthpiece you have about the same register. Thats my experience.
It can feel like it is easier in the low when climbing in to a big mouthpiece, but its not.

I will soon have to play the Vaughan Williams tuba concerto and was in doubt about I should doing it. The collegians don't want me to play Bach/Schubert arias.

I did it 20 years ago but...I'm not like wine...better after many years. But when starting practice it again it was surprising much easier then with a bigger mouthpiece 20 years ago. Legato, staccato everything is easier now. I can work more on the music not technique. I'm surprised.

When I did switch to the 1 1/2g it was because a practice recording of me did show I played much better on it. I could not believe it but it was so.

I can only speak for my self but there is more music out of my bell these days. Because technique is easier. And surprising the low register is more musical now. I don't have to work so hard to make it sing down there.

This is me (sorry) and its maybe not so for all but I believe most musicians/teacher should help the young bass trombone players to start in the right end. Not with a bathtub in the low sub register but to make basics and music in the normal (bass) trombone range first.

Its different technique to play extreme low notes on a "60" compared to a 1 1/2g. I'm not an expert down there but to pop out a short strong pedal D I have to warm up correct, I have to warm up a long time and make some attention to the lower register. And that I do everything relaxed and correct in all registers. Then it works. (on a good day

) And nothing can project more when this works well. For me its not easy and I have to work some to make it happen.

I have a feeling many think they want to avoid this and hope this notes will be there without to much work. But it don't helps to pop out some tones and be happy. You have to make music, phrases, legato and everything down there also. And what about the high register?

Sorry people, I'm babbling again

but something is easier and something is harder. The only thing that always seems to be true: Nothing is free...even if it looks so.

ttf_boneagain · Post by **ttf_boneagain** » Fri Feb 20, 2009 7:00 pm

Quote from: CRWV on Feb 20, 2009, 05:22PMI think it has to do with the width of the airstream. I think (this is a common issue in singing) that the tendency is to think big and force a whole shitload of air, it'll get you more initially than fighting with the more traditional method, and you can play loud from the get go, which is a common issue with early students having to deal with ensemble situations.

Very interesting thought. I've always had a lot of trouble with the "blow the sound to the back wall" school of playing. I've referred to this article (http://www.smithwatkins.com/pdf/itg99.pdf) elsewhere. A reputable engineer (Richard Smith) set up an experiment where a reputable trombonist played without ANY air going THROUGH the horn. There was still air movement in the horn, but he managed to set it up so that it was TRULY a pipe closed at one end.

I think that larger mouthpieces are a natural consequence of two things, one of which strikes me as positive, one negative. The positive thing is what can be done all over the horn with a larger mouthpiece on the chops of the right player with the time to spend to make it work right. For certain halls and orchestrations that sounds, to my ears, like an improvement. For us mere mortals, however, we have the negative thing, that being misguided visualizations of blowing the sound through the horn. When I just plain blow hard a 1 1/2G size backs up like mad. When I ease up and focus on the resonance the volume and tone almost seem to happen in spite of me. Of course, every player is different. But the Smith experiment makes it abundantly clear that we are all the same in NOT blowing the sound through the horn.

I rather suspect that that minority of folks who sound great all over the horn on bigger MPs area actually also superior at the whole resonating thing. Having more vibrating lip area will take considerably more air to control, but that's not the same as thinking "I have x cubic yards inside this horn... I'd better fill it up."

Very interesting thought, CRWV!

ttf_GetzenBassPlayer · Sat Feb 21, 2009 12:14 am

Quote from: boneagain on Feb 07, 2009, 07:23AM
I think of how orchestral sound has become less distinctive in the last forty or so years. I hope the options for bass trombone sound variation take the opposite path in the next forty!

I do not hear this happening. Thanks to Rhapsody, I have been able to listen to many more orchestras while doing my score study. I have beginning to hear more differences in how various orchestras approach the music at hand. I commented in another thread about the use of vibrato by the 2nd trombonist in the USSR National symphony in the group's recording of Scheherazade, which is much different than what was used on the Chicago recording. I have found that the more I really listen, the more differences I hear.

I think the move to sizes other than 1.5g is much more diverse than what can be told by a single statement. Gabe's reasons are different than mine and I am sure mine are different than others. The bass trombonist that has the best sound I have heard plays on a Greg Black 1.25 size piece. Wade's sound is incredible. Not sure why he chose that size, but I am sure glade he did.

ttf_boneagain · Post by **ttf_boneagain** » Sat Feb 21, 2009 6:59 am

Quote from: GetzenBassPlayer on Feb 21, 2009, 12:14AMI do not hear this happening. Thanks to Rhapsody, I have been able to listen to many more orchestras while doing my score study. I have beginning to hear more differences in how various orchestras approach the music at hand. I commented in another thread about the use of vibrato by the 2nd trombonist in the USSR National symphony in the group's recording of Scheherazade, which is much different than what was used on the Chicago recording. I have found that the more I really listen, the more differences I hear.

I think the move to sizes other than 1.5g is much more diverse than what can be told by a single statement. Gabe's reasons are different than mine and I am sure mine are different than others. The bass trombonist that has the best sound I have heard plays on a Greg Black 1.25 size piece. Wade's sound is incredible. Not sure why he chose that size, but I am sure glade he did.

Point well taken. I should know better than to indulge in sweeping generalities! But for me it was easier to differentiate not only international but intranational sounds in late 1950-mid 1960 recordings versus what I hear today. Of course, I HOPE many of those differences were due to the conductor. Mravinski versus von Karajan versus Reiner versus Rodzinski versus Szell... Even when the same conductor worked for long periods with different orchestras it was possible to tell both the conductor AND the orchestra. As has been pointed out here and elsewhere in the forum, the players adapted equipment to the sounds required. No surprise that a group with a conductor of long tenure in a very stable venue would wind up pretty distinctive, with characteristic audibility (or in some cases, tasteful relative inaudibility) of the low brass.

Guess it's time to try another round of Tschaikowsky and compare my favorite of the earlier crop (Mravinski) against the latest issues. When I sampled in the 1990's I decided that re-masters of the older issues provided more of the variety I like than what was contemporary in that decade. Before making sweeping generalities on THIS decade I should do some more homework!

I do want to emphasize, though, that I am convinced that playing a larger mouthpiece than a 1 1/2G is not a definition of OUT of "their right mind," or is playing a 1 1/2G a definition of "IN their right mind." Letting go of the obvious (and previously noted) consideration that, for any bass trombone playing, "...you don't have to be crazy to work here, but it sure helps," complete insanity is using the wrong tool for the job. So if it WERE the case that orchestras WERE homogenizing, right-mindedness would lean more toward larger than smaller.