TubeNet

I just returned from Iowa where I got the chance to visit Lee's shop and play in the community band that he conducts. Lee has a super facility and is turning out some fantastic work. I had a lot of fun and found a great mouthpiece in the bargain. I borrowed Lee's 20j, and he let me use his Geib model mouthpiece with it.

It's been a long time since I played a 20j in an ensemble. His is a good example. I had a ball experiencing the depth and resonance of the horn, especially on the low F. I found it surprisingly agile in the middle and upper register.

I had a stock Conn Helleberg mouthpiece along and did a bit of A/B comparison with the Geib. There was a world of difference. The Helleberg made the 20j sound pretty bland and fluffy. The Geib gave some real "pop" to the sound. Attacks were crisp, and the sound had a great presence and focus.

I've yet to try the Geib on one of the horns that I play regularly. I imagine that I'll like the results.

Many thanks to Lee for the hospitality and friendship.

Sounds like a real nice time, Sam.

This raises 2 related thoughts in my admittedly disturbed mind. Nuances of mouthpiece choice have been touched on quite a lot among this group, but here goes, once again. 1) Sometimes the horn one is trying out is actually a lot better than one thinks. The problem is the mouthpiece used isn't a good match for the instrument. 2) I propose that finding the "right" mouthpiece has a lot to do with trade-offs, although hype sometimes might enter into the equation. That said, though, a "one night stand" with a new and different mouthpiece can give one a whole new appreciation of one's playing - and of different horns. Discuss?

I've always been a proponent of finding the "right" mouthpiece for the horn being used. Unlike many players I'll use a wide variety of sizes and shapes of mouthpieces in my playing. I'm not locked into one rim diameter etc.
If I'm paying euphonium, baritone horn or tuba I go with the mouthpiece that fits the horn and gives me the characteristic sound and response. With my euph I use the Wick SM3, the baritone horn gets the Conn 3, cimbasso uses the Lasky 28C and the 4/4 CC the Marcinkiewicz H2, Besson Eb - Wick 2. It usually takes only a few trials to come up with what's right for each instrument. I let my own concept of sound and feel dictate the choice. I'll work my chops around whatever is necessary to achieve that.

jeopardymaster wrote:Sounds like a real nice time, Sam.

This raises 2 related thoughts in my admittedly disturbed mind. Nuances of mouthpiece choice have been touched on quite a lot among this group, but here goes, once again. 1) Sometimes the horn one is trying out is actually a lot better than one thinks. The problem is the mouthpiece used isn't a good match for the instrument. 2) I propose that finding the "right" mouthpiece has a lot to do with trade-offs, although hype sometimes might enter into the equation. That said, though, a "one night stand" with a new and different mouthpiece can give one a whole new appreciation of one's playing - and of different horns. Discuss?

Sam Gnagey wrote:I had a stock Conn Helleberg mouthpiece along and did a bit of A/B comparison with the Geib. There was a world of difference. The Helleberg made the 20j sound pretty bland and fluffy. The Geib gave some real "pop" to the sound. Attacks were crisp, and the sound had a great presence and focus.

That pretty much describes my experience with the mouthpiece on the Holton. I had previously used a PT-48, and what I liked about it was that it minimized the woofiness of a big tuba and helped with focus and clarity. The Geib takes that to the next level.

After playing the Geib on the Holton for about three months, I went back to the 48 for several weeks as a test. Often, such tests show me that my previous favorite mouthpiece still is. But not this time. I was down in Austin visiting Mike Lynch, and played a bunch of tubas in his collection including the 6/4 Rudy and various other big tubas. At that time, I thought it was time to go back to the 48 because it had a big bigger breadth of sound in the low register, and ended up using both that evening. Mike's comments confirmed for me that the Geib really was delivering focus and clarity. A big tuba delivers breadth--it doesn't need help from the mouthpiece. It does need help in terms of focus and clarity, though.

(And, yes, Lee knows a good 20J when he sees one. I've played one of his that he recommended and thought it significantly better than the one that I had owned, though I still had to play the third-partial F 1-3.)

Rick "still using and recommending the Stofer Geib" Denney

(I would have loved to be a fly on the wall at the meeting of these two tuba construction savants.)

Didja play the 7/4 Rudy? Godamighty... I never saw so much horn.

I thought my Holton responded better with a funnel shaped mouthpiece. Once I switched to a more bowl shaped mouthpiece and Mr. Jacobs gave me a good lecture on why the Holton needed a funnel shaped cup. He was right, of course. I wouldn't go so far as to say everybody needed a Helleberg-style mouthpiece on a Holton but I did.

Scooby Tuba wrote:

cengland wrote:Hi Alex,
Would you be willing to share the essence of Mr. Jacobs' lecture?
Chuck

Alex,
Please do. It would be greatly appreciated!

I'm thinking this would be of general interest to many of us on TubeNet.

Please share.

Alex C wrote:Didja play the 7/4 Rudy? Godamighty... I never saw so much horn.

I thought my Holton responded better with a funnel shaped mouthpiece. Once I switched to a more bowl shaped mouthpiece and Mr. Jacobs gave me a good lecture on why the Holton needed a funnel shaped cup. He was right, of course. I wouldn't go so far as to say everybody needed a Helleberg-style mouthpiece on a Holton but I did.

Yes, I played the Rudy, and I had also played it when Lee had brought it to the Army Conference. When you look at it and have two native bearers place it in your lap, your first inclination is that it must be utterly unplayable. Then you play it. After about five minutes, you realize that not only is it playable, but it's rather magical. You begin to fantasize about owning it, and you imagine yourself playing it in various large ensembles.

Then, common sense sets in, and you realize that 1.) you can't lift it, 2.) it doesn't fit through most doors, 3.) it doesn't fit in your car (unless you drive a Suburban), and 4.) you had to sell that Suburban (and the house, and your wife's wedding ring) so you could afford it. There are few who are worthy of a Rudy 6/4. I am not worthy. Mike is worthy. At least I get to come for a visit from time to time.

When I play a Helleberg on the Holton, all I get is woof, woof, woof, woof (it is not, however, as woofy as the Revelation 52 that was supplied with the Holton). The sound loses a lot of its focus and color. I'd love to hear Jacobs's advice, but I'm not in that league and I have to use what works for me.

Rick "thinking the Rudy makes sense in a section of four strong players, only one of whom has the big Rudy" Denney

cengland wrote:Hi Alex,
Would you be willing to share the essence of Mr. Jacobs' lecture?
Chuck

I always try to be accurate when quoting Mr. Jacobs; I wrote down almost everything he said in the lessons immediately after I was finished, but over the years I can't find all of the little notebooks I used. I put them in places where I won't loose them (you know, those places you forget about because they are so "special"). So here goes:

He told me the York tubas were designed to be played with a funnel shaped mouthpiece. The Holton is a copy of the York and so you should play a funnel cup mouthpiece.

He believed that bowl shaped mouthpieces produce a darker sound (than a funnel cup) and the large tuba (e.g., a Holton) needed more overtones to carry the sound out over the rest of the orchestra. Therefore, the funnel shaped cup was necessary.

He said the horn performed better with funnel shape cups and talked about airflow within the mouthpiece, made some drawings (which I have - somewhere) depicting what happened with a bowl-shape vs. a funnel shape. This aspect would seem to apply to the mouthpiece only and not be affected by which tuba was being used, so, according to this logic, a funnel shape mouthpiece should always perform better than a bowl shaped mouthpiece at all times. I don't believe that even Mr. Jacobs would ascribe to my "logical" deduction.

There was a lot of additional upbraiding which I will forgo but it dealt with "what were you thinking of to forget such a fundamental fact of playing, etc., etc, but it's OK, here's a Helleberg you can use in the lesson."

Two things from the perspective of 2008 (twenty something years later):

1.
Almost everyone used smaller diameter mouthpieces at that time.

• I was playing a Giardinelli Helleberg in those days, the diameter was probably 31.5mm.
  
  I never played his original Helleberg, but the Canadian Brass copy has a 31.75 mm diameter.
  
  The Helleberg 7B is 31.5mm according to my info.
  
  The Conn 2's of that period were cut on the original (from the 30's) Helleberg mandrel. About 31.5mm.
  
  The "original" (70's version) Conn Helleberg copy is at least 32.5mm and was considered a very large mouthpiece at that time.
  
  Many of the mouthpieces being sold and played today are 33 and 33.5 mm diameters. That is a HUGE difference.

One way to play the Yorks successfully (but not all of the York copies are good enough to respond to this) is to use a smaller diameter mouthpiece (Helleberg) and let the horn work for you. This would be against the grain of today's players who depend on massive amounts of air being pushed through the aperture causing a wide aplitude of vibration (speaking of the embouchure itself here) resulting in a much louder sound than Mr. Jacobs used regularly. Such loud playing may be one of the contributing factors in the rise of the number of people who are displaying nuero-muscular problems.

Ask yourself, if Jacobs was so successful on a small diameter Helleberg why don't any of today's players use that mouthpiece? My answer? Things change; his sound was so individualistic that it is not understood by some (conductors) and his style and approach to playing is fading.

His sound carried over the orchestra at any dynamic. Most of today's tubists play louder when they want to be heard, Jake depended on color to be heard. His lung capacity, his physiology, would not allow him to compete athletically... but his artistry allowed him to excell individually.

2.
Mr. Jacobs was not technically inclined about tuba design. His interests were in the psycho-neuro-muscular phenomenon area, the biological processes.

His opinion was that .750 was the perfect bore size for a tuba. It makes sense, the Yorks (both the 4/4 and the 6/4) were .750 bore - that works great, it must be perfect. If Pop Johnson liked it, so did he. Rarely did he address technical issues about tuba construction in a lesson or in conversation that I have heard.

With exceptions: Leadpipes and he liked that the York & Holton's had a larger 4th valve tuning slide because it helped give the horn an "organ-like tone in the low register." I asked him about the ports in the 4th valve ports being smaller and the tubing immediately after the 4th slide being smaller and he said it didn't matter. It was a Pop Johnson design.

Heck, who can blame him.

Alex C wrote:He believed that bowl shaped mouthpieces produce a darker sound (than a funnel cup) and the large tuba (e.g., a Holton) needed more overtones to carry the sound out over the rest of the orchestra. Therefore, the funnel shaped cup was necessary.

He insisted on the small (by today's standards) Helleberg for exactly the same reason I prefer the Geib. But the notion that a funnel mouthpiece is more colorful than a cup just doesn't fit with my experience.

The Geib is not a huge mouthpiece, and it's a design at least as venerable as the original Helleberg designs Jacobs used. It feels smaller to me than the PT-48, which is a big mouthpiece but still not as deep as a regular Conn Helleberg.

I'll have to compare the Geib with my 7B just to see if it is a size issue.

Rick "who absolutely agrees that a colorful sound carries more efficiently" Denney

I hate to see this so far off of the Gnagy-Stofer topic, but there you go, it happens.

Jacobs also favored using a small mouthpiece on the big horns for a change of color. I mean really small. He used a Schilke 62(!) often to demonstrate it, along with the adjustable cup mouthpiece he had (I do not know the maker). He'd crank that sucker down until it was shal-low.

He may well have used the Schilke 62 on the Bozza "To Be or Not To Be." Most people listen to that recording and don't realize that Jake is using the same imstrument that he did on the orchestra excerpts on the same CD.

I have to say that I never saw a Geib mouthpiece in the studio but lessons in the last ten years came annually at best. So discussions with Jake and Geib-mouthpieces in the same sentence are foriegn to me.

I had the opportunity to visit Lee's shop this week for some horse trading and tuba work.

What a blast! Lee is a true gentleman and most hospitable host. Though I gave him very little notice regarding my dropping in, he found the time to do the work I needed and to show my father and I around his facility. He gave us the story on most of the many horns lying around, what they were and what his plans for them were. My father is not a musician but enjoyed every second of the visit.

Needless to say, his work was exemplary and I came away with a Stofer/Geib mouthpiece as well. I am unable to be as technical in my description as some of my fellow TubeNetters but I will say in the very short time that I have played it, that I am very much impressed. A mouthpiece that everyone should at least try.

If you need work done on your horn, give Lee a call. You'll be glad you did!