TromboneChat

The poor old Bach 1 1/2G...... it gets a hard time these days.
Ed Kleinhammer can't see a use for it in the modern orchestra...
We call it a starter mouthpiece... a stepping stone to the serious stuff.
I've trumpeted the value of the improved Rath 1 1/2W and how we sorted the low register problems and funny rim that caused constant complaints (which we did)...
Well, the last couple of days, I've been thinking about all this....
Thinking a lot.
I took a few days out to see an old friend who is getting back into trombone after a long layoff from the profession. He wanted to settle on the right mouthpiece before really getting his head down and working...
so we took a couple of days, about forty mouthpieces, dozens of good recordings and a few bottles of wine, so that we were really sure that we had it right.
We played, we listened to old and new trombone recordings, we played some more, we drank, we played, I remodelled a rim, then another, then another, we played some more.
Then he gave me a present......
The finest Mt. Vernon Bach 1 1/2G that I have EVER come across !!
I had the Mt. Vernon 1 1/2G that I had turned into the prototype Rath 1 1/2W with me..... no comparison.
This new Mt Vernon is rich, creamy, refined, vibrant, singing, focussed......
and just as odd on the rim, and hard down low, and unforgiving as any Bach.......but when you work at it... it rewards you SO MUCH.
My Rath works better. Period. BUT ,the Bach is seductive beyond belief.
The sound I just love.... it's George Roberts, it's Tony Studd, it's not what you hear today.
Listening to lots of recent playing (non orchestral) the bass trombone has changed in sound.... almost everywhere.
SO..... perhaps I have been wrong....
perhaps all the kids should buy buckets that blow easy....
instant low register.... of sorts
They should fight for a sound on them for about twenty years....
Then they should try to buy a Mt. Vernon 1 1/2G, and try to play it if they do find one.
Not many will put up with all the problems....
But the few that do will be rewarded.....
It's not a starter mouthpiece...
It's a finisher mouthpiece.
Against my better judgement, I might just blow this quirky, stuffy, thing of beauty for a few weeks.....
I can always go back to the easy route....
but this is so interesting..... yes interesting.
Ask yourself when you play...is this the most interesting sound I've ever made ? It's a shame if it's not.

Chris Stearn.

I play a Getzen 1.5 G!

It's easier to double on, but I haven't yet tried out many other bass bone mouthpieces, so I might not know what I'm missing.

Truth man, truth....

Great post!

QuoteAsk yourself when you play...is this the most interesting sound I've ever made ? It's a shame if it's not.

nicely put

unless its interesting in a bad way (my french horn-playing roommate trying to play my trombone.)

Great post.  Too bad it's going to disappear shortly when the new forum comes up.  Chris, why don't you save a copy and repost this after the new forum is up and running?

P.S.  I also play a Bach 1.5G on my bass

Chris, I would like to know where Ed Kleinhammer states that about the 1 1/2 G ( to get it in context).
In an ideal world You would be better off by sticking to one  singel piece of equipment, but it shure is a good learning experience to try out other things. My biggest experience comes from playing some really good old Conn 70 and 72H models which sort of taught me a new way to approach the bass trombone. Unfortunately as with Your 1 1/2G example these models are a bit to much of a challenge if You where to use it for everything.
The big dividend from playing these models however is that I try to emulate the sound  when playing my modern (big) Shires and Monette combo.If a young player goes directly to the big orchestral "behemoths" without testing these oldies they will not get the right foundation to build a sound ideal in my opinion. I actually think that You could sucessfully play a big honker with modern freeblowing valves with the elegance,finesse and crispness of the old timers if You have experienced it by playing "obsolete" equipment.
Almost like history learning by doing!!

tbarh

Quote from: "tbarh"Chris, I would like to know where Ed Kleinhammer states that about the 1 1/2 G ( to get it in context).
In an ideal world You would be better off by sticking to one  singel piece of equipment, but it shure is a good learning experience to try out other things. My biggest experience comes from playing some really good old Conn 70 and 72H models which sort of taught me a new way to approach the bass trombone. Unfortunately as with Your 1 1/2G example these models are a bit to much of a challenge if You where to use it for everything.
The big dividend from playing these models however is that I try to emulate the sound  when playing my modern (big) Shires and Monette combo.If a young player goes directly to the big orchestral "behemoths" without testing these oldies they will not get the right foundation to build a sound ideal in my opinion. I actually think that You could sucessfully play a big honker with modern freeblowing valves with the elegance,finesse and crispness of the old timers if You have experienced it by playing "obsolete" equipment.
Almost like history learning by doing!!

tbarh

I totally agree with your point. The Kleinhammer comment was in a recent interview in the ITA journal.
Chris Stearn.

I have a question that's almost on topic.

The music played in orchestra hasn't changed since it was written and the human body hasn't changed since it was written, but brass instruments have changed and it most cases quite drastically.  

So have we:

a) Changed the sound we want to make, either in tone or volume
b) Changed the way we make the sound we want to make
c) Some combination of a and b to greater or lesser extent of either option

So if we are changing the sound we want to make because we like it better or it makes playing easier why should it be such a big issue that some players are using huge mouthpieces if they feel that it makes an improvement to their playing?

I know that the horn sounds different two feet behind the bell in a music store than 50 feet from the front or side in a concert hall, but I can't believe that a conductor or musically savvy audience member hasn't noticed a detrimental effect on the player's sound or flexibility in all the years that horns have been getting larger and informed that player.

I'm not an advocate of the idea of larger is better, but I don't see how it could have continued like it has if it is bad for the music.

Quote from: "Swimbo"The music played in orchestra hasn't changed since it was written and the human body hasn't changed since it was written, but brass instruments have changed and it most cases quite drastically.

Not to nit-pick, but I heard a news story on the radio recently about how the average shoe sizes for both men and women have increased dramatically in the last few generations - so have heights, widths and other body dimensions (cmoe on' guys - no jokes here, please!!!). And certainly, life expectancy has changed, too, in the last century or so (and will continue to do so?)

So the body is changing.

I'm not arguing for bigger mouthpieces because of our bigger bodies, mind you, I'm just thinkng out loud - trying to add some perspective to this discussion.

That is a good point, people are in better condition physically today than they used to be and usually most people reach their full growth potential.  That might have allowed bigger equipment to become more manageable.

Swimbo, there is a big difference between bigger and too big.

Bigger means you play a larger mouthpiece, but you can play all the notes you need to and can play them in tune.  All the way up as high a parts go.  For a tenor trombone this is F atop the treble staff.  For a bass trombone this is C inside the treble staff (6 ledger lines and 4 ledger lines above bass staff, respectively).

If all the notes in the upper register are out of tune and fairly flat, the mouthpiece is probably too big for the player.  The player can work on embouchure to improve performance of the big mouthpiece, or just go back to a smaller mouthpiece.

Many conductors may not like the "tuba on a stick" sound, but they don't know why you have it.  Some will just reject you in an audition, but if they have to use you they will just not like it.  And they can't figure out what to tell you to fix the problem.  Others may think it quite appropriate and for them, bravo.

Sometimes you discover by accident that the larger equipment is contributing to a problem.  I remember playing a Dvorak symphony (I think the 8th) where we had a problem with the blending of the chorale at the beginning, which was solved simply by my switching to a smaller bore trombone; in my case an original model Olds dual bore.  Suddenly the lower voices of the chorale blended with the upper voices.  Magic!

I think I'm going to dig out my Mt. Vernon 1 1/2G again.  It's sitting in my Euphonium case as a backup to my Warburton 3/3B mouthpiece.  I should give my old friend (it was the first bass mouthpiece I ever bought, and it was Mt. Vernon because that was where Bach was at the time) another go.

I think the major driver of bigger mouthpiece use was initially contempory music being written for bass trombone... both shows and big band... it became harder and harder to get round some of this stuff in the 70's (I remember it well). So people started to try bigger... I think Schilke was first to respond, then others followed.
Then the big gear found it's way into local music shops and kids found a way to an instant low register..... but as has been said, the youngsters were hitting this stuff without the sound concepts of the pro players....
so things change, and a duller, big horn type sound becomes more the norm.
I'm not talking of the fine players in the profession here, but of a mass of young players that just do things in a different way.
I know pro players who are brilliant using big mouthpieces.... some of them ex-students of mine, that I put on the big mouthpieces... because it worked for them. Interesting sounds... that's the key.
What is happening in professional orchestras, at least around these parts, is that more and more conductors are asking for 'smaller bores' for music that is not of the largest scale...... so we often end up playing smaller trombones then we would have 40 years ago.
It's funny, I am just sharing my joy at how wonderful a really good old Mt. Vernon Bach 1 1/2G is... and I've never played anything better than a really good old Bach, but it seems to naturally lead us into the whole sound thing and where we have gone in the last 40 years.
Chris Stearn.

Chris, you'll like this.

Jose from Dillon's and I (who both play bathtubs) have a running joke: whatever mouthpiece we're playing, it's a 1 1/2 G in our minds...

OK, it was funnier at the time.

George Flynn sounds pretty amazing on a 1 1/2 G, and he gets around pretty well on the stupidest low register show book of them all, The Lion King. Not to mention Maria Schneider and John Fedchock's crazy big band books.

If you've never heeard it, it's certainly worth the shock value to hear George play Jaco Pastorius' Teen Town on the Fedchock New York Big Band CD.

Oh, and Dave Taylor. He doesn't play a 1 1/2 G anymore, but I think his current pieces are still around that size.

If I could play as well as those guys, I'd play a 1 1/2 G too.

Swimbo:

I thinkl an important part of the equation is that the world in general has gotten louder.

There are just enough people who sound great on any particular piece of gear (2G's, S 60's etc) to confuse those of us who don't sound good on any equipment.

Quote from: "tbonegeek07"

I play a Getzen 1.5 G!

It's easier to double on, but I haven't yet tried out many other bass bone mouthpieces, so I might not know what I'm missing.

I HAVE tried out several other bass bone mouthpieces, and I still perfer my Getzen 1.5G. It just sounds sweeter.

Quote from: "Gabe Langfur"Chris, you'll like this.

Jose from Dillon's and I (who both play bathtubs) have a running joke: whatever mouthpiece we're playing, it's a 1 1/2 G in our minds...

OK, it was funnier at the time.

George Flynn sounds pretty amazing on a 1 1/2 G, and he gets around pretty well on the stupidest low register show book of them all, The Lion King. Not to mention Maria Schneider and John Fedchock's crazy big band books.

If you've never heeard it, it's certainly worth the shock value to hear George play Jaco Pastorius' Teen Town on the Fedchock New York Big Band CD.

Oh, and Dave Taylor. He doesn't play a 1 1/2 G anymore, but I think his current pieces are still around that size.

If I could play as well as those guys, I'd play a 1 1/2 G too.


Thanks for that Gabe....
I've heard both you and Jose play a bit (in a crazy room) and you both play it as you say it..... nice compact, rich sound.
I heard some other guys swimming around in need of rescue on their big mouthpieces at that event.

Have musical situations gotten louder ???
Orchestras ? No..... some were VERY loud 40 years ago.
Big Bands ? don't do enough to say, but I played in some very loud groups when I was younger... so I doubt it.
Brass bands ? Yes..... a lot of these groups are silly loud
Shows ?  most are electric mix today, so they may be easier as a blow.
There is other stuff unique to the U.S. that I don't know about, but overall I don't buy the  life is louder idea.
Lotta guys still using 2B's/11c's and similar on tenor, but basses are big, and mouthpieces bigger.
Funny.

Chris Stearn.

Quotebut overall I don't buy the life is louder idea.
Lotta guys still using 2B's/11c's and similar on tenor, but basses are big, and mouthpieces bigger.


And I would say that GENERALLY, in the places you find tenors playing 2B's with 11C's, you also find bass trombone players using 59ish or smaller mouthpieces.

Life IS louder now...we crank our ipods, traffic noise is much worse in alot of places than it was even 10 years ago, and musical theater, for example, is often cranked to deafening levels.  You see much more plexiglass spread around orchestras (other than the big boys and girls) these days because even with small string sections, some orchestras play way too loud.  Bigger is better is louder...

Was it a different thread where Gabe was talking about a Bruckner 4th run with the Rhode Island Phil where the conductor had them play much more compactly and roundly than they expected?  I like the idea of that, and I think it can be applied, to some extent, to many other composers as well.  The last time I played Bruckner 4th, the orchestra, a mix of symphony professionals, university teachers, and some advanced students, was blowing the crap out of it, and more than a few of the players weren't always able to control their sound or pitch at that volume.  I suggested to the 1st trumpet player that we play one section (big Gb major chorale) in a much more round and relaxed manner...he just looked at me and said, "MY part says fortissimo there!"   Great!    No wonder nobody wants to sit in front of his bell.

To me, THAT also falls under the category of " the world is louder".

I wish I could go back to a smaller mouthpiece.  Sam Pilafian's words "Play the smallest mouthpiece you can stand" make alot of sense to me.  So far, the smallest I can stand is a Yeo.


Dan

Dan, I can see your point, and hi-fi sytems cranked up at home and cinema systems reaching uncomfortable levels in public tend to lead to greater sound expectations in other places.....
but I think things in orchestras have peaked, and are on the way down in many places.
In a professional orchestra, you NEVER play at your volume limit. You always work within, so as to have real control..... anybody on a volume ego trip is heading out of the door.... but that said... when did this relationship between mouthpiece size and potential volume become accepted wisdom ? I don't buy into it... I can see no relationship between those two in the players I know.
Chris Stearn

Quote from: "blast"when did this relationship between mouthpiece size and potential volume become accepted wisdom ? I don't buy into it... I can see no relationship between those two in the players I know.
Chris Stearn

Good point.

Norman Bolter can play astoundingly loud, with control, on a 5G and his old 88H. It gets...brilliant...on that horn, but never out of control. The key word here is CAN of course. He certainly doesn't do it all the time.

He can play just as loud on his Shires - probably not louder, but it's true that he can make a warmer, thicker sound on the Shires at the highest volumes.

In some ways I think I could actually make more decibels on the smaller mouthpieces I used to play than I can on the Laskey I play now. And I can play softer on the Laskey, but I think that's more because I'm a better player now than because of the mouthpiece.

Believe me, Chris, I don't buy into the size=volume thing either.  I spent a loooong time on the other side of that fence, and I wish I had listened to reason a lot sooner!  It works well for a small percentage of people, and the others who play huge equipment are just fooling themselves.

I'm not so sure that things have peaked.  Some places where I play, conductors ask for a ridiculous amount of volume out of some sections, and an equally ridiculous LACK of sound out of others.  No real balance.  And in a perfect world, those on the ego trip would be out the door...but we all know people who play that way, and are encouraged to do so. Smaller equipment lets a player reach that point of "excitement" in the sound sooner, and thus the music doesn't have to be unreasonably loud to SOUND loud.

Dan

Dan, your last point about excitement at lower decibels is very good, and very important.... we don't need to take out the viola section to excite an audience.... unless we play equipment that only excites at mega decibels.
When we compare mouthpieces or instruments A-B it is all too easy to choose the darker, duller, warmer equipment, forgetting that we need a mix of qualities on the trombone, whatever the music we play.
At the end of the day, tone quality is a subjective thing, and my love of the sounds of Roberts, Studd, Premru, Hughes etc is nothing more than my subjective taste.... valid as such, but no more valid than any other serious musician's ideas.
The best thing I could do for any school or college bass trombonist, is to lock them in a room with recordings of all sorts of bass trombone playing from the last fifty years and not let them out until they have listened to them all. On release, I would hope they would have an idea of what they think they like in the playing of others..... they would then have to see if some of these people sound the same live....
Then they have a template to create their OWN sound.
Chris Stearn.

Quote from: "Dan Satterwhite"
Smaller equipment lets a player reach that point of "excitement" in the sound sooner, and thus the music doesn't have to be unreasonably loud to SOUND loud.

Dan

I had a nice Conn 62H that just YELLED when you pushed it. Not in a "loud" Edwards/Bach way - it was like someone next to you at a ballgame telling the ref off kinda loud. A real HUMAN quality. Maybe even a roaring lion kinda sound. That is what the modern horns lack. When Mahler or Wagner or Berlioz wrote FFF they didn't want more BLAHHHHHHHHHHH. Same for PPP - little BLAH is still BLAH.

I good friend of mine from grad school plays trumpet in a fulltime symphony now. We were discussing Nicholas Ecklund (spelling?) and the baroque trumpet. We both agreed that brass instruments in general took a wrong turn when they distanced their sound from the human voice.

Ever heard a nice Williams trombone being played? Very vocal quality.

As for the "normal" size pieces, like the 1.5G, until a few years ago most of the stock ones were not good.  Thankfully, with Blast leading the way, some mouthpiece makers will work on designs of that size that WORK.

I have another friend that is hoarding a few MV 1.5G's. It has taken me 5 years of knowing him to let me make a copy of his Minick L. Since this is not a cheap operation, I will be looking at his MV 1.5G's next to copy in the distant future.

Yes, I am looking at making mouthpieces as good, or hopefully better than the old Bachs..... I'm very pleased with what has happened with the Rath projects, but I am still investigating these things. I have been lucky enough to have been loaned a Minick L by a very kind fellow trombonist, and earlier this week, had the chance to compare it with another genuine Minick L..... food for thought. Minick was a clever guy and his work is worthy of very close examination. I still need to determine exactly what makes New York and Mt Vernon Bachs special.... everything must be checked. I also have a soft spot for the copies of George Robert's mouthpieces made in, I think, the 1980's on the west coast... NY, CE, MV, SE & SO models..... some of these blow very, very well.
Really great mouthpieces are not just about manufacture, but also quality control.....each one would need to be play tested and tweaked for optimum results.... and any that don't work out need to be binned right away.... the sort of process that I think Minick went through.
Chris Stearn.

Really good topic and a good read.
I have a question that might not be on topic, but it might fit.

I've read and heard a number of times how some people play on larger mouthpieces because a 1.5G size is too small and for their fat lips.
But i've seen Trumpet players and Horn players with fat lips and they seem to be able to fit into their mouthpiece just fine.
Is this just an excuse or does it hold some truth ?

As an amatuer that has messed about with mouthpieces, I can understand why people (especially the youngsters) get onto bigger kit. The young ones want to play the low stuff all the time. Everything has to go down an octave. It gets a smile from the other youngsters in the band they think it's cool.
The bigger pieces can make some things easier. There is always a trade off. Big fat low end can lead to a big flat lifeless higher register. At least it has done for me.
It took me along time for me to understand that you choose your equipment (especially the mouthpiece) for the sound that it allows you to make, and the control that it allows you to have, not for the notes it allows you to play. At least that's how I've aproached things for a while now.

I think it too easy for players to fall into  the signature series. trap. I'm sure some of the mouthpieces (Yeo) for example, whislt being a good product, was designed by Doug for himself. It is probably the perfect mouthpiece for him. I recently bought one of the Rath mouthpieces, and I'm very pleased with it. I'm having to work with it at the moment, as it plays a little differently to my previous piece, but I feel there are benefits to be gained by sticking with it. Could I ask Chris how much of this piece is designed to fit him, as opposed to just trying to improve on the original Bach piece ?
I just wonder how it works. Do the companies make a mouthpiece that Joe Alessi will play, that fits him perfectly, and then market it knowing people are going to buy it just because it says Alessi on the rim, as opposed to finding a piece that best fits them ?

Well Alex, you have a Rath 1 1/2W.
That mouthpiece came about through a chain of events.
I was playing the Rath 1 1/4W, which was not developed by me, but was the baby of the bell maker at Rath, who is also a bass trombonist..... he was there all the time and tested a LOT of things....
anyway, I had given him a very damaged wide-rim (very,very wide) Mt. Vernon Bach 1 1/2G as a paper weight... I thought it could never be fixed.
He got Adrian, the Rath slide maker to work on it after hours, and fix it up...
He then gave it to me as a gift.
Well, I took the rim down to a reasonable size and reworked the profile until I was happy with it..... I tried it in the orchestra and thought that it was very good..... so I suggested Mick make it as the 1 1/2W using the backbore already developed for the B1 1/2.
When the prototypes came through I was very pleased. The change of backbore was the finishing touch. As the weeks went past I felt more and more that this was a valuable new option in the smaller bass market, and feedback from customers confirmed this.
Now all this is just the story of one project out of 25 years of mouthpiece modifications, and though I think the Rath 1 1/2W is a major step forward, I have no intention of halting my research....
There are still secrets to learn and I intend to keep studying the very finest examples from the past, to create great mouthpieces in the future.
Did I design the Rath B1 1/2W to fit me ?
Yes and no.
I did make a mouthpiece that I personally felt at home on, but it was a project..... to create a wide rim 1 1/2G style mouthpiece to fill a gap in the market, just like the B2W that was a tribute to Ray Premru, but in that case, a mouthpiece I wouldn't personally use- it was a response to market demand.
Hope this helps.
Chris Stearn.

Cheers Chris,

It's kinda the answer I expected from you on the Rath piece.
I have never actually play a Bach 1.5G.
I hated bach rims when I played tenor, always found the wider Wick rims more to my liking. I think that is one of the reasons the Rath B1 1/2W feels right for me.
It's hard work though. I have to think more about my playing than I have ever done, but the rewards are worth it.
One of the nice things I have found is how even the timbre is across all the octaves. Maybe that's just me though. The sound from my side of the bell is much more rounder and fuller than before. But it's still my sound.
I haven't found a note that I can't play on it, although I still have the problem I mentioned in my pm to you. Sometimes I just get nothing.
This occurs on the notes I used to move about on. I can't shift this mouthpiece very much at all. It really does just lock into one place and wants to stay there. I feel this is for the better, at least for me anyway.

A reminder: during the Fritz Reiner era of the Chicago Symphony Orchestra, the trombone section played Conns.  Including Edward Kleinhammer.  And the mouthpiece Mr. Kleinhammer used on all of the Reiner-era recordings and concerts?

Bach 1 1/2G

-Douglas Yeo

And did Mr. Kleinhammer not also give clear and concise instructions in " The Art of Trombone Playing" published by Summy-Birchard in about 1962 as to how to MODIFY a Bach 1 1/2G.

He had the drawing of the reamer and instructed to start reaming from the shank up to the throat and keep reaming until it was a point just below the throat of the mouthpiece.

Mr. Yeo, I'm sure I have the publishers date and name incorrect, and I know that in later years Mr. Kleinhammer recanted some of his earlier advice , but I think the written record goes to prove that perhaps it wasn't always a stock Bach 1 1/2G.

Not that it matters one whit...the magic of the Reiner recordings remains undiminished half a century later, but the limitations of the 1 1/2G were apparent even then.

My copy of The Art of Trombone playing went to a deserving student a long time ago, please correct me as to the exact advice published in The Art of Trombone Playing.

Quote from: "yeodoug"A reminder: during the Fritz Reiner era of the Chicago Symphony Orchestra, the trombone section played Conns.  Including Edward Kleinhammer.  And the mouthpiece Mr. Kleinhammer used on all of the Reiner-era recordings and concerts?

Bach 1 1/2G

-Douglas Yeo


One of the most interesting things to note about this is that although mr.Kleinhammer later in his career used much bigger equipment,You can hear that he has "formed" his sound on a "traditional " set -up; Huge sound ,Yes!! but with plenty core and a "generic" trombone sound(not an
undefined brassy bass sound)which easily blends with the rest of the trombones ,while distinguished itself from the tuba(yet matching it).
Not the sound You are most likely to hear from some young students using the biggest equipment there is,thinking that a big sound is more important than a beautiful sound!!!
BTW!!
What  mouthpiece are Mr. Kleinhammer using on the CSO low brass section recording from`71? I can see that he has changed from Conn to Bach 50B,but the sound is still very close to the Reiner era.

Interesting topic,Chris

tbarh

I happen to have my copy of "The Art of Trombone Playing" handy...

QuoteAnd did Mr. Kleinhammer not also give clear and concise instructions in " The Art of Trombone Playing" published by Summy-Birchard in about 1962 as to how to MODIFY a Bach 1 1/2G.

He had the drawing of the reamer and instructed to start reaming from the shank up to the throat and keep reaming until it was a point just below the throat of the mouthpiece.

Mr. Yeo, I'm sure I have the publishers date and name incorrect, and I know that in later years Mr. Kleinhammer recanted some of his earlier advice , but I think the written record goes to prove that perhaps it wasn't always a stock Bach 1 1/2G.

Mr. Kleinhammer devotes a couple of pages in the first chapter to the mouthpiece.  What he says here is exactly what any reputable teacher and/or experienced player will say:

"If he [the player] is looking for the "magic" mouthpiece with which he can do anything safely and accurately with wide tonal and volume range, he is looking for a needle in an acre of haystacks."

He goes on to say what has been more recently said (less eloquently) on this forum in any number of mouthpiece threads:

"The writer advises buying a generally satisfactory and comfortable mouthpiece and then the seeking of proficiency on your side of the mouthpiece.  Constantly seeking the "ultimate" in mouthpieces can not only confuse the player, but will probably result in lack of proper consideration to playing fundamentals and coordination."

Wise words that, with today's dizzying array of mouthpiece choices, are more important than ever.

(as I write this, a box sits on my table containing two new Griego mouthpieces )

As for the reamer, he advocates (much later in the book) using one to open up the backbore of one's mouthpiece (a 1 1/2G is NOT specified) as a low register playing aid.  I believe Mr. Kleinhammer would say that he wasn't the world's most natural extreme low register player, and in fact would often play 3rd trombone when two basses were called for (Ring excerpts, for example), letting the extra play the very low part. In all likelihood he used a reamed mouthpiece, or an adjustable cup mouthpiece only as an aid for extremely low notes he encountered.  He also mentions having an Eb tuba mouthpiece in his case as standard equipment in case he had to "bring out" something in the pedal register, like Symphonie Fantastique. Remember that he endured and survived an era in the Chicago Symphony where a bad day could spell disaster for a musician's career.

The mouthpiece in Mr. Kleinhammer's horn in the picture on the front of the CSO Excerpt record looks to me to be a Schilke.

I'm still very happy with my Rath B1½ and play it all the time with either my Rath R9DST or 1942 Conn 70H, which means, I suppose, that I am one of a select few players who do use a 1½G (albeit a clone) on a daily basis. I'm still reaping the benefits and receive nothing but positive feedback on the sound I am making. Either it's the combination of bits and pieces of hardware or the player behind them. I suggested to my section at the weekend that it must be the hardware - they retorted that it's the player.

Here goes an ugly can 'o worms......


According to most published stats the sizes of Rath mouthpieces are larger than the matching Bach numbers. I admit it depends where you measure from on the rim , though.

Established size of a BACH 1 1/2G = 27mm
                                  RATH 2B=        27.2mm
                                  RATH 1 1/2 =   27.4mm

So, if the numbers are accurate then a Rath 1 1/2 is closer to a Bach 1 1/4.

Which takes us bakc to the previous two posts: Its the player, not the mouthpiece that matters.

Kevin,
The publised numbers are far from accurate (as usual). I was checking the Raths against the Mt Vernon prototypes last week. the B2 and B2W are very much on spec with the original Mt Vernon 2G.... though that example is a fraction larger than the Mt Vernon 2G that I own... but it's very small.
The B1 1/2 and B1 1/2W are both slightly larger at the inner rim than the Mt Vernon that was copied. It must have happened during the transfer to production, but it is SO small that I didn't pick it up when play testing.... so they are nowhere near a 1 1/4G size.... still very much a 1 1/2G size.
Hope that helps....are all the worms back in the can ?? probably not.
Chris Stearn.

Quoteare all the worms back in the can ?? probably not.

Nope.
Through the years I have owned lots of Bach 1 1/2G pieces, I did lots of experiments using the as blanks.
Opening the back bores, throats, mixing different cups and rims and so on. Interesting it was. I did not make the ultimate MPC though…I haven’t done anything like that on the last 30 years though.
But I did measure all the MPC:s. The MTVernon pieces are all different sizes! And the rim contours differ to.
A good MT.V piece is really something extra I think.
I did destroy some fine MPC:s back then .  

In defence of the Rath mouthpieces...... as compared to Bach mouthpieces, to keep this on topic:

I play tested the whole line bass trombone line of Rath mouthpieces on a fine day last spring: I'm convinced that through design or error they are numbered and named by the degree of control over the mouthpiece that the player perceives-- so that --

No matter what the actual physical measurement of a Rath 1 1/2 it will give you the same control over the mouthpiece that a primo juicy Mt. Vernon 1 1/2 will give you. The B2, although a hair larger than a measured 27mm will provide the same control as a MV 2G.

Throw the measurements out. Throw the calipers away. Go for the feel of it.

QuoteThrow the measurements out. Throw the calipers away. Go for the feel of it.

I agree.  Mouthpieces must be measured in different ways by different manufacturers.  Some people say a Yamaha Doug Yeo (28.72mm) is a viable option for a Schilke 59...orhers say a 60.  There's a huge difference in size between a 59 and a 60, and for me, the Yeo is much closer to a 60,  in feel, rim contour, and size.

Griego says their .5 has an ID of 28.91mm, but to me, it feels similar to a Laskey 93D (29.3mm) and feels even larger than a 60, which is advertised as 29mm.

A Stork 1 is listed as 28mm, just like a Bach 1G, but it feels bigger.


Long story short, test drive for a reasonable amount of time.

When I work on a mouthpiece I never bother to get the calipers out and check what I have done... it just goes on the face for a test. Last week I copied a rim shape onto another mouthpiece just by feel....and the results were judged very fine. The lips are the ultimate test.
Svenne is right ....New Yorks and Mt Vernons all vary a lot, so a copy can only be as good as the original. A good Mt Vernon is very special indeed, and not just another 1 1/2G..... the whole reason I started this thread was my rapture at being given a really great one.
Chris Stearn.

i play a benge 1 1/2 g with my bach 42 when i'm asked to play bass parts

I have gone from a Griego.25 al the way up to a Bach 2g and 1.5. I am still tring to figure out this dilema. I  still think the Marc. 1 is the best for my playing.

Quote from: "xnavymusician"I have gone from a Griego.25 al the way up to a Bach 2g and 1.5. I am still tring to figure out this dilema. I  still think the Marc. 1 is the best for my playing. Down here we call that mouthpiece roulette. I have been guilty of that as well. For me, Ferguson LS is working great, but I occassionally fall back to my Minick L.

A lot of my bass trombone students have had great success with the Marcinkoiweichitchy.....Marc. 1. For several decades, I think it is a good mpc. Would you say it is about a Bach 1 1/4 in cup size, but with a narrower rim and a little more conical?

Probably a little better for big band or concert band than large orchestras, don't you think?

Quote from: "JP"Quote from: "xnavymusician"I have gone from a Griego.25 al the way up to a Bach 2g and 1.5. I am still tring to figure out this dilema. I  still think the Marc. 1 is the best for my playing. Down here we call that mouthpiece roulette. I have been guilty of that as well. For me, Ferguson LS is working great, but I occassionally fall back to my Minick L.

A lot of my bass trombone students have had great success with the Marcinkoiweichitchy.....Marc. 1. For several decades, I think it is a good mpc. Would you say it is about a Bach 1 1/4 in cup size, but with a narrower rim and a little more conical?

Probably a little better for big band or concert band than large orchestras, don't you think?

I have the Marcinkiewicz George Roberts model (also called #2).  Side note: Is there any mouthpiece maker who doesn't have a George Roberts model?  I also have a #3 which I keep with my symphonic tenor when I need to be a "chamber bass".  The GR is slightly bigger than a 1 1/2G.  Now that I play a lot less bass than I used to, it has become a good alternative to my Doug Elliott LB 112/L/L8 setup.  Maybe one day I'll get a smaller setup from Doug, but the Marcink. is doing fine for me now.

I'm moving back to the 1 1/2G sized mouthpiece on bass trombone.  I was playing on the larger 1 1/4 sized mouthpieces for the past three years or so, and I think I was foolish for doing that.  My intonation was consistently flat, and I was constantly gasping for air because of the larger cup and throat.  My only 1 1/2G sized mouthpiece now is a plastic Kelly, and when I popped that in, I was shocked to find how much more endurance I had and how my sound was more focused.  And the low range worked as long as I breathed correctly and relaxed, not trying to force anything out.  So I've got a Doug Elliott SB108/J8 on order, and am really looking forward to getting it.  The Kelly is OK, but the sound isn't as resonant as a metal mouthpiece.  Plus, I think a Rath bass trombone deserves more than an inexpensive plastic mouthpiece.

Quote from: "Mahlerbone"  Plus, I think a Rath bass trombone deserves more than an inexpensive plastic mouthpiece.

Don't know. Its the result that counts not the price. I recently bought a Kelly and did some blind tests with other trombone players. Nobody could tell the difference.

It feels different but sounds the same as a bach.

Also over the years, as I got better, I seem to be, sound wise, less and less dependent on the mouthpiece.

Where could you go to purchase a Mt. Vernon Bach 1 1/2 G?
I have never had the chance to try one.
Thanks
Sherwood

Quote from: "sshaplin"Where could you go to purchase a Mt. Vernon Bach 1 1/2 G?
I have never had the chance to try one.
Thanks
Sherwood

The last of the Mt. Vernon mouthpieces were made in the early 1960's.  They show up on Ebay from time to time, or you can post a WTB listing in the Classified section of the Online Trombone Journal.

The Faxx 1 1/2 G is a copy of a Mount Vernon 1 1/2 G, so that might be the most cost-effective solution.

You may find that there is really nothing quite so magical about a Mt. Vernon 1 1/2 G compared to another similar sized mouthpiece (especially a good one, like the Rath).

Quote from: "BGuttman"Quote from: "sshaplin"Where could you go to purchase a Mt. Vernon Bach 1 1/2 G?
I have never had the chance to try one.
Thanks
Sherwood

The last of the Mt. Vernon mouthpieces were made in the early 1960's.  They show up on Ebay from time to time, or you can post a WTB listing in the Classified section of the Online Trombone Journal.

The Faxx 1 1/2 G is a copy of a Mount Vernon 1 1/2 G, so that might be the most cost-effective solution.

You may find that there is really nothing quite so magical about a Mt. Vernon 1 1/2 G compared to another similar sized mouthpiece (especially a good one, like the Rath).


Sorry, but there really is a special quality to a really fine Mt Vernon 1 1/2G...
Feel and sound are just wonderful, and like nothing else...... but they are not as in tune in most trombones as a Rath, and are harder work down low than a Rath.....
sure it's only metal.... but Bach was a master maker who still sets the standards by which other equipment is judged.... He kept his secrets, and it's for us to try and work them out.
Chris Stearn

Quote from: "blast"Quote from: "BGuttman"Quote from: "sshaplin"Where could you go to purchase a Mt. Vernon Bach 1 1/2 G?
I have never had the chance to try one.
Thanks
Sherwood

The last of the Mt. Vernon mouthpieces were made in the early 1960's.  They show up on Ebay from time to time, or you can post a WTB listing in the Classified section of the Online Trombone Journal.

The Faxx 1 1/2 G is a copy of a Mount Vernon 1 1/2 G, so that might be the most cost-effective solution.

You may find that there is really nothing quite so magical about a Mt. Vernon 1 1/2 G compared to another similar sized mouthpiece (especially a good one, like the Rath).


Sorry, but there really is a special quality to a really fine Mt Vernon 1 1/2G...
Feel and sound are just wonderful, and like nothing else...... but they are not as in tune in most trombones as a Rath, and are harder work down low than a Rath.....
sure it's only metal.... but Bach was a master maker who still sets the standards by which other equipment is judged.... He kept his secrets, and it's for us to try and work them out.
Chris Stearn

From the tone of Sherwood's message, it seemed as if he thought Mt.  Vernon was a model like the Griego Deco and he'd just walk into a good music store and one would be waiting for him.  Not so.

So how does he test out our theory that a Mt. Vernon 1 1/2G is so good?  I made two suggestions.  But a mouthpiece is a very personal thing.  I'd bet if I gave Derek Ream my Mt. Vernon 1 1/2G he wouldn't give up his Monette for it.  And Sherwood may like another mouthpiece better, too.

I won't argue that a good Mt. Vernon 1 1/2G for the right person is a wonderful thing.  I happen to own one.

I also suggested that a Rath copy of the 1 1/2G might be a good way to find a stellar 1 1/2G mouthpiece, which you agree; even to the point that you claim the Rath is more in tune than the Bach.  Maybe so; I don't have a Rath to compare with.  Maybe some day when I have some disposable income ...

I had a Mt. Vernon 11C I played on tenor and it had no plating left on it. When I polished it it was NOT a yellow like brass. It was GOLD , just like the gold brass Bach bells. Many commented on whereever I could have found a gold plated Mt. Vernon.

On topic--  I second Blast's comments about ease of low notes on the Rath mouthpieces. Something about the shoulder down near the throat?

If you accept the given value of 27mm being the standard 1 1/2G size then the Rath B2 is closest, at 27.2 mm. I also see that Greg Black now offers a mouthpiece in that size.

The tide turning, Chris?