TromboneChat

I’ve heard good things about the symington 2G, and they sell super fast. Do they have this “magic”

Elow wrote: ↑Mon Dec 14, 2020 6:42 am I’ve heard good things about the symington 2G, and they sell super fast. Do they have this “magic”

You bet... And a rim that are easier to live with.... Its Btw a copy of a 2G MV..

Yes, the Symington is a very good copy of one of mrdeacon's 2G MV Bachs. It's a little different to play but very good. My ex-student in the Halle has both and likes both.

Chris

EdwardSolomon wrote: ↑Wed Jan 29, 2020 6:13 amIf that combination worked for Bob Hughes (a most worthy successor to Ray Premru in the Philharmonia Orchestra) and still works for James Buckle (the current incumbent), it most certainly works well enough for me.

Not to say that you're wrong for yourself, but I'm wary of this sort of reasoning (if it works for [someone talented] it'll work for me). There are pros who sound amazing on a dual bore Edwards and Schilke 60, for example, but that setup is a poor choice for me and for most players I've heard on such equipment. I expect the same applies at the other extreme to 62H and 2G combo - it may work great for you and for other good players, but it won't necessarily be right for everyone.

I think Ed means if it worked for them then it is at least worth trying. Three or four years ago I recorded the Malcolm Arnold Symphony for brass on an Elkhart 62H and an Elliott 116 M M8...seemed to work...I wonder how the 2G would have worked....

Chris

We are hitting a bit of a brick wall here.
What I will say is that it is amazing how different the Bach 1 1/2G and 2G are considering they are so close in size....anybody want to riff on that ?

Chris

Now I’m curious. I did like Mr. Jones’ Ride.

EdwardSolomon wrote: ↑Fri Jan 31, 2020 2:58 am I can't say what mouthpiece Josh Cirtina plays on, but I do know he now uses an Elkhart Conn 62H.

6 years ago at the Eastman ITF, Josh was playing a 1-1/2G in an Edwards. FWIW.

GabrielRice wrote: ↑Mon Dec 14, 2020 11:09 am

EdwardSolomon wrote: ↑Fri Jan 31, 2020 2:58 am I can't say what mouthpiece Josh Cirtina plays on, but I do know he now uses an Elkhart Conn 62H.

6 years ago at the Eastman ITF, Josh was playing a 1-1/2G in an Edwards. FWIW.

He's using a Denis Wick 2NAL now.

FOSSIL wrote: ↑Mon Dec 14, 2020 9:18 am We are hitting a bit of a brick wall here.
What I will say is that it is amazing how different the Bach 1 1/2G and 2G are considering they are so close in size....anybody want to riff on that ?

Chris

Maybe the 2G was meant to make the 45B sound bigger and the 1 1/2G was adapted to fit the already dark sounding 50B...?
In a correspondance i had with Scott Laskey many years ago he said that sound had dimensions where the rim size represented width while cup size represented depth of sound... Being a doubler(tripper as i also play small bore) i found that rim diameter should correspond to the size of the horn... Just a thought..

I’m always amazed how this topic (small bass pieces and their relevance or lack thereof) remains a constant discussion in this forum. I’m very happy about it as I do not see such discussion on social media groups.

Very often the names Premru and Hughes are mentioned, sometimes I feel almost in order to “prove” famous players preferred the 2G. While this may be true I do think the fact that successful players in the UK today (!) use the 2G is way more of a ringing endorsement, given the ever increasing number of choices players face today. Listening to any of those active players should be proof enough that amazing playing can be done on a 2G.

The fact that it is not a popular choice here in the USA has been accredited to numerous reasons in past threads. I do not claim to know the ultimate truth but I am very sure that the different acoustical challenges American and British orchestral players are faced with, heavily attributed to the different paths of equipment choices and sound concepts that were taken. I do think it is important to realize that at a time when major concert halls and opera houses had existed in Europe, in America there had not been anything comparable. Many concert halls here were in first place movie theaters, many halls were altered several times for better sounds. Chicago comes to mind.

I also think it is important to not look at the choice of Conn 62h plus 2G alone but at the preferences of the low brass sections in general. Chris is the authority in this but when looking through recent rosters and videos of UK orchestras, it becomes clear the Conn 88H is still a very popular choice for tenor players, maybe the most popular even today ? In the United States the 88H has pretty much vanished from the professional symphony orchestra scene. There are a few exceptions (I believe the San Diego Symphony still prefers Conns, and if I am not mistaken Conn is played still in the Rochester Philharmonic, or was at least).
A serious American trombonist who is looking to have a career as an orchestral musician will most likely not seriously consider a Conn a contender. I am sure that in the UK it is different. It is also worth noting that in the UK the Eb-Tuba is the go to instrument, it is not in the USA. So maybe rather than looking at the 2G as an isolated example of taking a different path than we do here, it is interesting to look at the low brass section as a whole.

Something that comes to mind when reading through this highly interesting discussion is something a very successful, very experienced tenor trombonist who happened to have been on trial for a major London orchestra many years ago, said to me when I asked him about differences a few years ago. When I asked him what the differences are in terms of playing and especially when it comes to dynamic levels he mentioned to me (and I hope I remember this correctly, but really think I do) that he mentions that the low brass section playing was loud, but a “different” loud than what he was used to. Wish he had elaborated a bit more on this or that I had asked more, but that was probably the moment they served us our beer.

Something else worth noting is that the 2G is not just pretty much overlooked in the USA but also in continental Europe. Overall I’d say equipment is Europe is smaller than in the States but not as much so as in the UK. Chris called it before the British style that others don’t get. I do not think a certain mouthpiece choice or instrument choice alone defines a style but that these choices allow for a certain style to be produced more easily.

I never tried a Mt. Vernon unfortunately. And while I initially very much doubted these mouthpieces could ever work for me I always was intrigued, you have to try in order to know after all. And given that most of my contracted orchestral work had been canceled, meaning I felt that I had really time to give this a try so since the pandemic started I received a Symington 2 (April), Black-Premru (July) and finally thanks to Chris a Symington 1.5 (September).

These are extremely well made mouthpieces. That does not come as a surprise to anyone who ever played a Black before, but William Symington really really made a fantastic product there, as well. Beautiful work. Going backwards, I will say his 1.5 is definitely the easiest one to play for me, the most easy to get under control and with a beautiful sound. Despite being significantly smaller than my usual working equipment, it does not feel small of a blow, the sound is pretty open and the low range works great, I love that especially the upper range is very singing, easy to play and sounds just like a trombone should.
The Symington 2 is a different story. The sound to my ears is truly special and really unique. If you are interested in the 2G size you need to check this out, low range is pretty killer after a while, I was very surprised. I love this mouthpiece very much but despite my best efforts it is just a tiny bit too small for me to feel comfortable on. Could I overcome this by devoting some more months on it ? Maybe, but I think that something a bit bigger will just do the trick for me without having to put as hard work in.
Lastly, the Black/Premru is for me probably the most comfortable one. Because of the very wide rim it feels to me like a big mouthpiece on the face, very very comfortable even though the diameter is just 26.80. It makes a wonderful warm and dark sound, but different to the Symington 2 but a bit easier to play especially in the low range. It has this typical Greg Black sound in it, and if you have read until here, there is a very good chance you know what I mean by that.

The big question after all this trial and error remains unanswered due to the disruption of our industry by this pandemic: How would it sound in low brass sections with tenor players who play very large equipment ? Should I continue this route I will find out hopefully sooner rather than later. But so far the only section playing I did was with 8 foot distance and plexiglass in between players in a huge church, playing three not very brass heavy pieces, not exactly a real field test.

RustBeltBass wrote: ↑Tue Dec 15, 2020 10:20 am How would it sound in low brass sections with tenor players who play very large equipment?

I am in the (un)fortunate position of being able to answer that question and it is perhaps predictably negative. In the orchestra I perform with, the first trombone plays an Elkhart 88H with a 5G Megatone, the second trombone plays an Edwards T350 with a Schilke mouthpiece (not sure which), while I am on the Elkhart 62H, nominally with a Mount Vernon 2G. This combination just does not work. The broad, relatively dull sound of the Edwards tenor in the middle of the section means the 62H/2G combination is simply too bright to fit in. Swap out the Edwards for another Elkhart 88H, as happens from time to time when our usual substitute second trombone steps in, and it's all OK again.

This has forced me to make a change in mouthpiece approach, which I did discuss with Chris a while back. He agreed that the 62H/2G setup was not optimal with the Edwards in the middle and a mouthpiece change was in order to make the best of the situation. I have toyed with a Ferguson L, which has got me through a Bruckner 5 relatively unscathed, though it's more on the side of 1.25 and that feels big to someone used to a 2G.

I recently picked up a second hand Reeves/Brass Ark "Mr Bass", which sits in-between. It's around a 1.5 size and even though it certainly feels larger than the 2G, it is something I can work with. More to the point, I had the opportunity right before the first lockdown in March to test it in the orchestra (for only one rehearsal) and it definitely turned heads in the section. So I took Noah Gladstone's advice and am happy to switch between the two, depending on the section and the repertoire. The Mount Vernon 2G is still home base, so to speak. so I keep coming back to that mouthpiece to recentre and refocus my efforts.

Will it work in the long run? Too soon to tell. Hopefully we will get back together in the spring, else we will doubtless be waiting until next season ('21/'22) to find out.

Well, Edward, can I have that MV 2g back again.....

Anyway, I got a little curious about all this 2g talk. But I have two nice MV 1 1/2g and the smallest of them is best in my 60h. Strange enough the 70h is not so depending on mouthpiece as my 60h. Used a larger Symington in the 70h and it works wonderful. Not that good in the 60h. But I believe all this Conn trombones are different even if they have the same name.

Anyway, glad that the 2g I sold to Edward is in good hands. I have sold most of my mouthpieces so I just keep on playing the old 1 1/2g. I have never been that good especially in low register (or high), nor on big or small mouthpieces. So I just keep that old one. Amazing to listen that student of Chris, Kyle on a 2g in the low register. (Maybe not a student anymore since he is a professional) But most of this skills must be because he is simply a really good player? Same with Bob Huges and Premru?

Have to say this tread made me curious but hunting is over for me......thanks God...

Leif

How would it sound in low brass sections with tenor players who play very large equipment?
[/quote]
Edward Solomon wrote:
"I am in the (un)fortunate position of being able to answer that question and it is perhaps predictably negative.This combination just does not work. The broad, relatively dull sound of the Edwards tenor in the middle of the section means the 62H/2G combination is simply too bright to fit in. Swap out the Edwards for another Elkhart 88H, as happens from time to time when our usual substitute second trombone steps in, and it's all OK again."

Have you considered Using and Edwards bass trombone in this section or perhaps a Bach? perhaps a horn with a similar sound palate to the Edwards tenor would allow you continue to play your mouthpiece of Choice. Although I'll admit it's cheaper to change mouthpieces than horns, I'd rather change horns than mouthpieces when that will work and is possible.

modelerdc wrote: ↑Tue Dec 15, 2020 8:47 pm Have you considered Using and Edwards bass trombone in this section or perhaps a Bach? perhaps a horn with a similar sound palate to the Edwards tenor would allow you continue to play your mouthpiece of Choice. Although I'll admit it's cheaper to change mouthpieces than horns, I'd rather change horns than mouthpieces when that will work and is possible.

Not a chance. I switched away from Edwards nearly 20 years ago and I’m not about to reverse that journey now. There is simply no way I will switch away from my Elkhart 62H at this stage in my life. I’m 52 years old and I’m not interested in fiddling around with equipment much anymore. I don’t have the time or money to do so either. I’ll stick with what I have and I’ll make it work. I’ve been in the orchestra since the mid-1990s, so while the second chair has changed occupants quite a bit in that time, I’m the constant that the newcomers should really be adapting to. The orchestra has had an all-Conn section for many years now and strictly speaking, it should be down to the Edwards tenor to be questioning his choice, not the rest of us.

EdwardSolomon wrote: ↑Wed Dec 16, 2020 12:24 am

modelerdc wrote: ↑Tue Dec 15, 2020 8:47 pm Have you considered Using and Edwards bass trombone in this section or perhaps a Bach? perhaps a horn with a similar sound palate to the Edwards tenor would allow you continue to play your mouthpiece of Choice. Although I'll admit it's cheaper to change mouthpieces than horns, I'd rather change horns than mouthpieces when that will work and is possible.

Not a chance. I switched away from Edwards nearly 20 years ago and I’m not about to reverse that journey now. There is simply no way I will switch away from my Elkhart 62H at this stage in my life. I’m 52 years old and I’m not interested in fiddling around with equipment much anymore. I don’t have the time or money to do so either. I’ll stick with what I have and I’ll make it work. I’ve been in the orchestra since the mid-1990s, so while the second chair has changed occupants quite a bit in that time, I’m the constant that the newcomers should really be adapting to. The orchestra has had an all-Conn section for many years now and strictly speaking, it should be down to the Edwards tenor to be questioning his choice, not the rest of us.

Going off topic a bit here: how does that work in your Orchestra? Do you have the "authority" to talk about an equipment switch with your colleagues? Or is that a no go?

EdwardSolomon wrote: ↑Wed Dec 16, 2020 12:24 am

modelerdc wrote: ↑Tue Dec 15, 2020 8:47 pm Have you considered Using and Edwards bass trombone in this section or perhaps a Bach? perhaps a horn with a similar sound palate to the Edwards tenor would allow you continue to play your mouthpiece of Choice. Although I'll admit it's cheaper to change mouthpieces than horns, I'd rather change horns than mouthpieces when that will work and is possible.

Not a chance. I switched away from Edwards nearly 20 years ago and I’m not about to reverse that journey now. There is simply no way I will switch away from my Elkhart 62H at this stage in my life. I’m 52 years old and I’m not interested in fiddling around with equipment much anymore. I don’t have the time or money to do so either. I’ll stick with what I have and I’ll make it work. I’ve been in the orchestra since the mid-1990s, so while the second chair has changed occupants quite a bit in that time, I’m the constant that the newcomers should really be adapting to. The orchestra has had an all-Conn section for many years now and strictly speaking, it should be down to the Edwards tenor to be questioning his choice, not the rest of us.

This argument loses strength as the payscale and stakes increase.

I don't think the "this is how we've always done it and how we are always gonna do it" argument ever works, but I get it. Trombones aren't free.

Let's put it this way. When the section comprises 1st trombone on Elkhart Conn 88H/Bach 5G, 2nd trombone on Elkhart Conn 88H/Schilke, bass trombone on Elkhart Conn 62H/Bach 2G, everything works fine, no adjustments necessary. When the 2nd trombone is on Edwards T350/Schilke, you're suggesting that I change my entire setup just to suit the 2nd trombone. All that does is to throw out the baby with the bathwater. It solves nothing. In fact, it would arguably make things far worse, as everyone in the orchestra that I have spoken to agreed that I sound much better on the 62H/2G setup and that this enhances the sound of the entire brass section, particularly given that I played an Edwards there for around a decade.

I'm not arguing that you switch to accommodate the 2nd bone. If the first and third are matching up, the 2nd needs to get with the program.

I think this is why you see almost all american trombone sections playing 100% Edwards or 100% Shires. Look at the mouthpieces they are on too. I keep seeing sections on 100% modern (ie not the heavy old school) Edwards with everyone on a Griego mp. Everything they are playing on was designed by literally one person and his crew. Or the 100% Shires sections. They can even go for the Elkhart sound but with a modern predictable response if they want. If the section isn't gelling, then those are what the top sections are reaching for. If you grow up playing a horn made in the 21st century, then you don't want to have to learn how to play a horn made in the 50s just to work, when it seems like almost no one else is.

So in your case, you should suggest he gets something from Shires that will blend in with you guys. That's a super expensive solution, but it makes sense. If both the first and second are on modern horns though, then ...

In an amateur situation like Ed's it's not really possible to tell people what to play.
For what it's worth, Ive never heard a Shires that sounds remotely like an Elkhart Conn, whatever the hype claims.
And back to the 2G subject.....
After 7 months in the practice room and a mere two weeks in the orchestra, my 2G is back in the box. I love the sound, but I seem to find it hard to get the consistant results that my income depends on...it's all my fault, but it has to be right every time.

Chris

FOSSIL wrote: ↑Mon Dec 14, 2020 9:18 am We are hitting a bit of a brick wall here.
What I will say is that it is amazing how different the Bach 1 1/2G and 2G are considering they are so close in size....anybody want to riff on that ?

Chris

You know I've never tried a 2G of any maker. Anyone offering one up? (kidding)

WGWTR180 wrote: ↑Wed Dec 16, 2020 7:59 am

FOSSIL wrote: ↑Mon Dec 14, 2020 9:18 am We are hitting a bit of a brick wall here.
What I will say is that it is amazing how different the Bach 1 1/2G and 2G are considering they are so close in size....anybody want to riff on that ?

Chris

You know I've never tried a 2G of any maker. Anyone offering one up? (kidding)

Speak to Don...

Chris

I would consider a 2G my "dessert island" mouthpiece. IOW's, if I had to pick one for everything and make it work, a 2G would be it.

FOSSIL wrote: ↑Wed Dec 16, 2020 7:32 am In an amateur situation like Ed's it's not really possible to tell people what to play.
For what it's worth, Ive never heard a Shires that sounds remotely like an Elkhart Conn, whatever the hype claims.
And back to the 2G subject.....
After 7 months in the practice room and a mere two weeks in the orchestra, my 2G is back in the box. I love the sound, but I seem to find it hard to get the consistant results that my income depends on...it's all my fault, but it has to be right every time.

Chris

Chris, i supposed You already considered the Symington 2? You already know the rim.. In my case it took almost all the inconcistency out of my playing (coming from a Mount Vernon 2G).. Every 2G rim i have seen are a little different to the 1 1/2G (and ti eachother) .. The Symington 2 rim are perfect for the size... If there are any downsides soundwise from altering the rim, i have not found it...

Trond

Amateur tenor player here, but I was asked to switch to bass for a concert series in grad school and was loaned the school's Conn bass (w/ Minick independent valves, not sure of H number or era anymore) which had a VB 2G in the case.

For me, as a not-a-bass-player, it was a super easy transition. After a couple days getting used to the bass the mouthpiece faded away and I had no issues playing in the registers I needed to play for the concert....or on my tenor, for that matter. That 2G just worked for me---or, worked well enough for my needs as a tenor doubler (DE 102-104 rims). I was quite sad to give back the horn and mouthpiece at the end.

If I ever end up buying a bass I'll be getting a 2G to start with. I really liked the sound I got from it and the response I got from it.

Hi Trond,
I got to test the Symington 2 before launch and thought it was very good indeed...but it didn't work with my dental formation. The 1.5 I was very much involved in, it being a copy of one of my MV 11/2Gs and I have used the prototype and a Zirconium model a lot.
I'm using a one off mouthpiece at the moment that sounds close to the 2G in tone but is far easier to play.

Chris

I keep wanting to try a 2g sized piece but finding one used, let alone one that's gold plated, idly hasn't really worked out. Since sitting down with Doug I've been working on my embouchure and have been working with each of my horns but the DW 1AL and Bach 1 1/2G I have for my bass just haven't felt "right". Probably just need to keep working and think less about the mouthpieces for now though.

Minnick made the 1 1/2G oversized, maybe we need a 2G oversized! I loved a MV 2G I had for many years, but just needed something a bit bigger!

FOSSIL wrote: ↑Wed Dec 16, 2020 11:47 am Hi Trond,
I got to test the Symington 2 before launch and thought it was very good indeed...but it didn't work with my dental formation. The 1.5 I was very much involved in, it being a copy of one of my MV 11/2Gs and I have used the prototype and a Zirconium model a lot.
I'm using a one off mouthpiece at the moment that sounds close to the 2G in tone but is far easier to play.

Chris

Hi Chris,

I can relate to the dental problem... My best friend plays horn in the Oslo philharmonic.. Because his front teeth formation he got a lip injury, that force him to use small rim diameter... Still a world class hornplayer.!
Btw, did You see my theory about the reasoning for the difference between a 1 1/2G and the 2G i wrote above?.. My Holton E185 is currently out on loan to a professional player... He gave me a 50B with double Thayer to use.. This is the first time i would choose the 1.5 over the 2..i get a feeling that a Thayer equipped Bach needs bigger diameter... Holton and Conn : 2 all the way..

As I said, I’m curious. I ordered a 2G from Conn-Selmer through my LMS.

FOSSIL wrote: ↑Wed Dec 16, 2020 7:32 am After 7 months in the practice room and a mere two weeks in the orchestra, my 2G is back in the box. I love the sound, but I seem to find it hard to get the consistant results that my income depends on...it's all my fault, but it has to be right every time.

We spoke about this previously, didn't we, Chris? You said that to get the full benefit of the 2G, it really has to be on your face for significant amounts of time, hence why a lot of pros work with one here in the UK with their busy schedules. If you're doing 3 x 3-hour slots in a day, of which at least two are guaranteed to have the mouthpiece on your lips, it makes a whole lot of sense to make that job as easy and comfortable as you can.

EdwardSolomon wrote: ↑Thu Dec 17, 2020 4:14 am

FOSSIL wrote: ↑Wed Dec 16, 2020 7:32 am After 7 months in the practice room and a mere two weeks in the orchestra, my 2G is back in the box. I love the sound, but I seem to find it hard to get the consistant results that my income depends on...it's all my fault, but it has to be right every time.

We spoke about this previously, didn't we, Chris? You said that to get the full benefit of the 2G, it really has to be on your face for significant amounts of time, hence why a lot of pros work with one here in the UK with their busy schedules. If you're doing 3 x 3-hour slots in a day, of which at least two are guaranteed to have the mouthpiece on your lips, it makes a whole lot of sense to make that job as easy and comfortable as you can.

Yes, in general terms, that's a good argument except numerous pros in the US make big mouthpieces work....I've done it myself. I find personally that the 2G is hard work, but I love the sound and the way that registers blend....it's a personal frustration.

Chris

That sums up my relationship with every 2G perfectly. I feel I always COULD make it work if I work just a tiny bit harder, but I never feel as comfortable as I’d like to on it. All the while it has this gorgeous sound....

FOSSIL wrote: ↑Thu Dec 17, 2020 6:44 am

EdwardSolomon wrote: ↑Thu Dec 17, 2020 4:14 am

We spoke about this previously, didn't we, Chris? You said that to get the full benefit of the 2G, it really has to be on your face for significant amounts of time, hence why a lot of pros work with one here in the UK with their busy schedules. If you're doing 3 x 3-hour slots in a day, of which at least two are guaranteed to have the mouthpiece on your lips, it makes a whole lot of sense to make that job as easy and comfortable as you can.

Yes, in general terms, that's a good argument except numerous pros in the US make big mouthpieces work....I've done it myself. I find personally that the 2G is hard work, but I love the sound and the way that registers blend....it's a personal frustration.

Chris

Modern Bach 2G is fundamentally different from Bach MV 2G. These are completely different mouthpieces. I have Bach MV 2G, Bach corp (no dot) and modern 2G. All three are completely different as if they are made by different manufacturers. MV 2G has wide round rims, Corp has flat wide rims and a large blank, modern 2G has narrow round rims and a narrow throat. But all three sound very good. My favorite is MV 2G.

Trombo wrote: ↑Thu Dec 17, 2020 11:58 am Modern Bach 2G is fundamentally different from Bach Mt. 2G. These are completely different mouthpieces. I have Bach Mt. 2G, Bach corp (no dot) and modern 2G. All three are completely different as if they are made by different manufacturers. Mt. 2G has wide round rims, Corp has flat wide rims and a large blank, modern 2G has narrow round rims and a narrow throat. But all three sound very good. My favorite is Mt. 2G.

By Mt.2G You mean Mount Vernon?

Yes of course. I had to write MV.

“Fundamentally different” or just within the normal range of variables, given Bach’s reputation for inconsistency, esp in the MV days?

Bach5G wrote: ↑Thu Dec 17, 2020 1:12 pm “Fundamentally different” or just within the normal range of variables, given Bach’s reputation for inconsistency, esp in the MV days?

Fundamentally different is probably spot on. I have a Corp 3G that is by all accounts a different mouthpiece than a modern one.

Bach5G wrote: ↑Thu Dec 17, 2020 1:12 pm “Fundamentally different” or just within the normal range of variables, given Bach’s reputation for inconsistency, esp in the MV days?

Night and day. Could be sold as two completely different models different.

I love threads like this...they make us all think, and the answers are different depending on what our involvement in the trombone world is. Professionals have to fit in, conform, produce the best results all the time and that means our priorities and choices can be different to those who play for the joy of it. I have loved playing the 2G at home, but that didn't transfer to work for me....again....but that's just me....it's a truly great piece and my issues with it do not detract from that..

Chris

In the (unlikely) event that I decide to retool with vintage Conn or Conn-like instruments, or some other make/model that might work better with a 1 1/2G or a 2G, how would I go about acquiring a Symington? I have a Corp. 1 1/2G and a 2G, but I am always curious about what’s out there...

Who knows? Maybe one day I’ll switch to the dark side!

PM sent

Kbiggs wrote: ↑Thu Dec 17, 2020 6:01 pm In the (unlikely) event that I decide to retool with vintage Conn or Conn-like instruments, or some other make/model that might work better with a 1 1/2G or a 2G, how would I go about acquiring a Symington? I have a Corp. 1 1/2G and a 2G, but I am always curious about what’s out there...

Who knows? Maybe one day I’ll switch to the dark side!

Easiest way is to either hit up Bill on Facebook, Symington Mouthpieces has a page, or hit up Bill here on the forums. He's an amazing guy to work with.

Burgerbob wrote: ↑Mon Dec 14, 2020 3:05 am

FOSSIL wrote: ↑Mon Dec 14, 2020 1:34 am
I've played and owned 2G size mouthpieces that were garbage.... it's not about size, it's about the Bach 2G as a design...especially the older ones...

Chris

Exactly. The Yamaha 58 is not anything like a 2G. Not much magic in the 58.

Which kinda sums it all up. I've tried playing on a Schilke 59, felt like I was swimming in it. Also gave the 1-1/2G (Faxx copy) a fair trial, and it was just too much work to focus the sound. It wanted to go "whoo - whoo - whoo" with no real core or color. On a whim, an E-Bay purchase of a Corp. 2G came through, and it was like having a coming home party. Range up and down became more accessible, tonal color filled out and sounded like it should; an extension of the trombone sound downward. Oddly enough, the fabrication of the mouthpiece itself was sloppy. The shank was machined non-concentric, and the rim seems rather narrower than examples owned by others. It has magic for me.

My 2G hurts my chops. It has a big radius on the outside of the rim, and a sharp radius on the inside. It's a mouthpiece that plays well up to a point, where it starts to kill my endurance.

Just to add a little to the pot, I have a Corp 2G(unaltered) that is slightly larger all around than a Yamaha 59L. Sounds great in my house. Outside my house, it wants to go home and get back into the drawer..

DonH wrote: ↑Fri Dec 18, 2020 4:13 pm Just to add a little to the pot, I have a Corp 2G(unaltered) that is slightly larger all around than a Yamaha 59L. Sounds great in my house. Outside my house, it wants to go home and get back into the drawer..

Ha ha ha !!! That can happen...as I found Don

Chris

FOSSIL wrote: ↑Mon Dec 14, 2020 9:18 am We are hitting a bit of a brick wall here.
What I will say is that it is amazing how different the Bach 1 1/2G and 2G are considering they are so close in size....anybody want to riff on that ?

Chris

Chris,

As someone who was once comfortable on 1 1/2s and then fell into a 2G groove, I find it impossible to play 1 1/2s these days. And I speak of the two mouthpieces that I make!

The extent to which I struggle with producing a focused sound on 1 1/2s is very surprising to me. I daresay that if I persisted I could do better, but fail to see why I should persist at this point. My playing is riddled with defects as it is, and playing a 1 1/2 seems to multiply them. My Stork 1.25 that I used to like is now quite beyond the pale.

I would of course have to admit that as a woodwind player that has gone rogue I am probably making matters difficult for myself. I'm almost as likely to be playing a baritone sax or a clarinet as I am bass trombones and perhaps the 2G more easily accommodates these opposing embouchure requirements.

As far as I can tell, the 2 size allows me better to match the three King 2Bs or similar that I sit beside (and the bari sax frequently in front of me), or otherwise the Conn large bores that I inevitably sit beside in the symphony settings I'm in - as far as I can recall, at this point.

I don't even find that pedal notes are greatly facilitated by going up to 1 1/2, weirdly the opposite in most cases. The slightly increased back-pressure from the 2G trumps the additional roominess of the 1 1/2.

Bill

islander wrote: ↑Sun Dec 20, 2020 9:50 am

Chris,


I don't even find that pedal notes are greatly facilitated by going up to 1 1/2, weirdly the opposite in most cases. The slightly increased back-pressure from the 2G trumps the additional roominess of the 1 1/2.

Bill

Hi Bill, as you know I love your work. I had initial problems really hitting the extreme low range on your #2 but got used to that after a while. The 1.5 is overall for me a better choice as in level of comfort and feel, though the 2 is really something special.

Having gotten somewhat used to your 2 before I got a 1.5 I was surprised that after some time now, the low range on the 2 is dare I say almost stronger? Chris’s former students with the Halle orchestra made some videos demonstrating a ridiculous open low range, very impressive.

I've spent time with both of Bill's mouthpieces in Zirconium. Both are terrific examples of the 1.5 and 2 sizes. I could play either one, but the 2G felt like it would take much more work to make it work. The 1.5 (for me) is a plug in and play. But there is a certain quality on the low end of a 2G size that seems compact and fat at the same time. Some may know what I mean and some may scratch their head.