Heavy mouthpieces

[bttmbow]

Sorry, but I have not read the contents of this ENTIRE post...

Don't get rid of a mouthpiece if you love it; bloke is right. Mouthpieces are personal; get ones that agree w/you and hold onto them, even if you don't have a tuba that matches that mpc.

(Heavy mouthpieces can do good things w/some players on some horns, so make up your own mind.)

[Allen]

This thread seems to have turned into a general discussion of mouthpieces and what possible differences they might make.

A while back I decided I needed an alternative different mouthpiece for my 4/4 CC tuba. I was using a somewhat large piece, and thought that something smaller would help me while playing high stuff. So, I got a smaller piece and practiced with it for a couple of weeks. Then, I asked my teacher for his opinion. He had me go back and forth between the two pieces, then said, "No matter which mouthpiece, you still sound like you." He offered that my articulation was a bit cleaner up high with the smaller piece. [I thought that I could get that effect with more practice.] It seems that I have a sound concept in my head, and I adjust my playing until I hear that sound. I've gone back to just using the large piece with my CC tuba. A friend was horrified when I told him that I traded that smaller mouthpiece away: "You mean you didn't keep it and simply add to your mouthpiece collection?!?"

With my large F tuba, I use two different pieces. The reason is that they make it somewhat easier to get two different sounds that I want (a lighter and brighter sound, or a darker sound with a heavier low end).

Cheers,
Allen

[Donn]

Rick "thinking this is a crucial issue for anyone wanting to improve" Denney

OK, maybe I see why it seems so vacuous to me - a semantic problem that stems from living in a completely different universe where people are striving for something I don't even recognize. Like,

The mouthpiece makes a difference, and maybe we like that difference, but it's not making us better. It's making us different, and perhaps in a way we want or that is more appropriate to our situation.

Huh? That isn't better?

See, maybe it's this: I have never been subject to approval from anyone on the question of whether I was a good or bad player per se. I assume people care whether I can keep up with the music, play in tune, get a satisfactory tone, attack, volume, etc. Of course, these are all things that a mouthpiece can very definitely help with. On my own, I have further ideas about how I would like to sound, but then the mouthpiece plays a role there, too.

But that's all I want - to be different, in a way I want or that is more appropriate to my situation. To be better in some other way, maybe I just don't have the background to appreciate that.

[Rick Denney]

Huh? That isn't better?

I'll try once more, from a different perspective, as much to improve my ability to express what I'm thinking as anything.

Many kidlets read this forum. Some of them are in high school, and some are in college. Some are adult beginners who have money to spend.

They have a choice to make. Will they focus on their own fundamentals, or will they seek to solve their problems by purchasing different equipment? Those of us with a little more experience see that as a gray area with lots of overlap, but I'm trying to pull the white and black apart and understand each separately. So, I'm making a distinction between refining equipment choices for a specific desired effect and buying equipment to solve a fundamental playing fault. It's true that the "desired effect" may make me seem to be a better player. But in fact, I'm bringing the same skills to the instrument as I was before, and buying the equipment has done nothing to improve my skills.

So, I have no beef with people who tweak hardware in search of a desired effect as long as they don't then think (and say) that the hardware made them better. We read all the time about how this mouthpiece or that mouthpiece gives more core to the sound, provides better pitch, cleaner articulations, more fundamental, more color, more breadth, more focus--whatever. They might, but only within the context of that player's skills. If that player does not have the skill to explore that improvement, or if even after the change the player still does not have basic competence, then it's just throwing money at a problem that can't be fixed by money.

Again, my observation of my trumpet-playing friend has made this much more clear to me. I'll bet that he's spent several thousand bucks on schtuff, and that could have bought him a couple dozen lessons with a good pro. That would have been a wiser expenditure, in my view. For him, the money is no problem and it might be a fun science experiment, and that's fine, but he won't know how his experiment turns out because any effect he might be seeking is buried down in that poor sound. I see me in that example.

I have read many times where top pros have come here and told us that the equipment doesn't matter. I have argued that it does on many occasions. But that was before I realized the distinction I'm now trying to make which they probably understand, listening as they do with much more refined ears. In the most important ways, they are absolutely right--a good player will still be a good player on even mediocre equipment. Being a good player on good equipment is better, of course, but moving to the good equipment won't solve any skill problems for a poor player. I love having good equipment, and I like the effect I get by using it. But I really do need to be vigilant about my own beliefs and expectations. It's quite easy to fall into the trap of believing (even if just sub-consciously) that because I have a Holton 345 I can make a big, orchestral sound. That trap is the death of improvement, and if it can tempt me with 37 years of playing experience, how much more might it tempt those with less experience?

Mouthpieces, being more affordable than tubas, are especially tempting targets for this trap. Typical belief: If I get a heavy mouthpiece, my sound will have more core and focus. Yes, maybe, compared to before, but it might still be a crappy sound. (Reminds me of the Cosby joke: "Cocaine intensifies my personality, man." "Yes, but what if you are an asshole?") Much, much more improvement would have been possible by making a few changes to the embouchure and air flow. The way I (now) keep my own expectations in check is to avoid thinking that a mouthpiece will make me "better". When I switched from the PT-48 to the Stofer Geib, I noticed more color and bite to the sound. Given that the PT-48 is a great mouthpiece for clarity, this surprised me. The upper register is also a bit more secure, though I'm still limited by my own skills in that area. The lower register isn't quite as big, but then I use that mouthpiece on a Holton 345, which provides all the bigness the world needs. I came to prefer the characteristics of that mouthpiece over the course of several months. But it did not make me a better player.

Rick "a slow learner" Denney

[Matt G]

I'm guessing here, but I would say that the changes in mass are physically minimal while psychologically subjective. Standing on the bell end while hearing a player of professional caliber switch mouthpieces leads one to believe that the difference is minimal. A good player can go from a Bach 32E to a Bach 7 and have a small change in sound across the money register, but the player will notice the comfort and compatibility which we won't often hear.

The heavy mouthpiece issue is also somewhat misleading, just like tuba debates. Mostly insofar that the player locally may notice a difference, but the outward audience will not. Heck, the best "audience" sound out of all my horns was a 188-5U, and that is compared to a YCB-822, VMI Neptune (piston), MW 32, and a big Frankenstein 6/4 BBb. The closest in sound was my original 186-4U BBb, but it wasn't nearly as good as the 188. The YCB-822 sounded great from the mouthpiece, the Neptune sounded great in the next seat, as did the Holto-phone, and the MW 32 sounded like an Alex up-close, but it didn't carry. The 188 sounded good far away. As a player, I found that most important. When the brass players around me heard the 188, they thought it sounded huge. I played a Rudy Meinl 5/4 CC on a concert, and it didn't want to get past the stage, no matter how loud I pushed.

When playing, I tried many mouthpieces. I brought along a decent musician with a good ear who didn't play tuba. In the end, what normally sounded best was something of standard weight, of a normal size, and normal bore. This was not referring to my comfort, but what sounded best in perspective. Ultimately, I used a Bach 7 and Dillon M1C 99% of the time and a Bach 18 on F tuba (YFB-622) and the York Eb. There is only so much a half inch can do acoustically.

There are many different mouthpiece for many different people. Personally, I always tried to match students with what felt the best and allowed them to tongue and slur well. After that, practice makes the most difference. Horn choice is far more important than mouthpiece, but funds limit most of us to what and how often we can choose. Mouthpieces are more financially accessible, and therefore are often touted as a panacea for tuba players.

Overall, I owned one heavyweight mouthpiece. I was a Bach 6-1/2 AL tenor shank. I bought it for euphonium playing, and the only reason it was a "Mega-tone" was because that is all the music store had in stock.

If you dig a heavy wall piece, that's fine. It's great that option is available. I still think the biggest measurable difference is psychological, and not physical.