Why use a heavyweight mp?

[Trevor Bjorklund]

When I bought my tuba, it came with some goodies, this object among them. Does anyone have any thoughts or feelings on the use of heavyweight mouthpieces? Besides looking funny and weighing a metric ton, what is the idea here?

Someone told me these are supposed to darken up the tone but I was under the impression that tone color is mostly controlled by embouchure and jaw/tongue position.

Also, in a nutshell, what is the difference between funnel and bowl shaped mps?

[Mark]

Why use a heavyweight mp?

It alloows you to pay the mouthpiece maker more money.

[Lectron]

^^ This

That said....You can also pay extra for shaving weight......

[Michael Bush]

There are many here who have far more lore than me. Bloke, for example, is actively working on making mouthpieces as light as possible, it seems, and I wouldn't dream of questioning that, especially since two of my three mouthpieces, including the one I use more days than not, are of his design.

But I do have one more, a Houser Warren Deck #3F, the "Bronx Billyclub," according to Houser's site. Here's what I think, and someone who knows more can say why I'm wrong: when my chops are in good shape, and I feel like buzzing like hell, that piece in a big tuba creates an amazing dark, silky sound. Less trombone-like than I get with a little less buzz and a lot lighter piece. I love it. I just don't always have the energy for it.

So I guess it is all about "the sound in your head" as people have long said around here.

EDIT: The downside is that if I stick the heavyweight in and don't give it the energy it requires, indistinct, uninteresting woofiness follows. FWIW.

[Phil Dawson]

to talleyrand: PM sent

[Michael Bush]

to talleyrand: PM sent

Didn't get it... Maybe try again?

[pgym]

Heavyweight mouthpiece advocates generally claim that the additional mass yields more consistent in pitch, timbre, and response over a full range of dynamics and range, improve projection, stabilizes tone quality, and produces a darker, richer, and more resonant sound. OTOH, detractors/skeptics claim that the additional mass reduces projection, inhibits flexibility, narrows the dynamic range, reduces endurance, and produces a dull, lifeless sound.

Phyllis Stork, of Stork Custom Mouthpieces, has this to say:

How does the use of a standard versus heavyweight mouthpiece effect the response and balance of the instrument?

In general terms, a heavier mouthpiece can work to darken the sound, add intensity to the core of the sound, and stabilize tone quality. It can also slow down the response and cut down on projection. Understanding these properties allows for intelligent choices regarding its use. For instance, while a darker sound with more core and stability would appear to many as upside characteristics, the accompanying downside must also be reviewed. Core and stability can easily spiral down to a kind of boring rigidity in timbre. For example, the player who regularly enjoys shading his tone (i.e., light to dark) may find that a heavier mouthpiece will not respond to this kind of manipulation quite as easily as will a normal weighted one.

Heavy mouthpieces have been around in one form or another for a long time. What we are seeing today in the "more mass to the brass" version is really just a poor man's version of a popular craze of the forties. Back then, sterling silver mouthpieces were all the rage. Tommy Dorsey owned one and certainly seems to have done okay with his!

On the other side, the popular trend among jazz players not more than thirty years ago, was to go lighter on the mouthpiece in order to quicken response and projection. Indeed, there are certain manufacturers whose basic mouthpiece blank (outer shape design) is purposely lighter than the standard weighted trumpet mouthpiece. It was common practice to have other manufacturers blanks skeletonized (have some brass removed) in order to achieve a completely different timbre profile.

One need not conclude here that cutting down on projection or response is always a negative. For players who would like to darken their sound, or perhaps more importantly, for those who have been requested to darken their sound, it can be a great cosmetic. Likewise, for the player with sledgehammer attacks, the extra weight can go a long way toward compensating for such natural propensities. Again, using weight as a variable gives one more control over the mouthpiece. The amount of weight used should reflect the kind of effect the player hopes to achieve. Not every use will require the same proportions. The old maxim "an ounce will cure, a pound will kill" is certainly very much to the point here.

[bort]

My one and only mouthpiece from age 14 until about 23 was a Bach Megatone 18... because it was what I decided to order from the Giardinelli catalog based on the fancy description. And then I was too broke-*** to buy another mouthpiece. Worked fine for everything, and I especially liked it for the Conn 20k and the other Conn sousaphone I used in college. Since then, I've moved on to other stuff, but I still I like it more than a normal Bach 18.

That, and Tom Holtz said it was cool because it looked like I was playing into a shot glass.

[Tom Gregory]

I think extra weight on a tuba mouthpiece makes sense if you compare it to the mass of a REGULAR weight trumpet or trombone mouthpiece. Tuba mouthpieces like the Bachs and Conn Helleberg seem somewhat skeletalized compared to other brass mouthpieces. This is not to say those regular weight mouthpieces don't work. It's just another option. Heavy-weight mouthpieces have a less dramatic affect on tubas than trumpets, IMO.

When choosing a heavy-weight MP make sure it's not just a regular MP with incomplete lathing. Makers like Mike Finn, Ivan Giddings, Dave Houser have figured out where the best place is for the weight based on their designs (Yes, I own "heavys" from all of these guys).

I use a MF3 on my Willson, A Warren Deck 3 and Sellmansberger solo2 (quintet) on my 188 and MF5 and the solo2 on my B&S PT10. It's fun to figure out which combinations work best for different circumstances. You're only limited by your imagination (and your wallet).

[TubaRay]

Everyone DOES realize (yes...??) that a "heavyweight" mouthpiece requires less time (and less tool wear) to manufacture - as there is less material to cut away from the outside.

Well DUH... That's why they cost more!

LOL

[Donn]

Bach Megatone 18

I can't say if I've heard this specifically about the tuba mouthpieces, or maybe bass trombone mouthpieces, but I believe the Megatone models also have larger throats.

[Carroll]

Everyone DOES realize (yes...??) that a "heavyweight" mouthpiece requires less time (and less tool wear) to manufacture - as there is less material to cut away from the outside.

Well, of course, it is "special" thus more expensive.

You do remember back in the 60's and 70's when unleaded gasoline (gas to which lead had not been added) was substatially MORE expensive than leaded gasoline (which required an extra step and additive).

[jonesbrass]

Those R&S mouthpieces always crack me up . . . looks like you're playing into a tin can. If I ever got one, I might paste a Campbell's soup label on it . . .

[MikeMason]

I like my old style caver better than the new.thats all I know...

[mcfolks]

This mouthpiece is a custom design by a former WWBW empoyee, and as far as I know was marketed by them exclusively. They are no longer made, and are getting hard to find. When WWBW was closing out their inventory, I ordered 10 of them! They are now being played by other tubists in my sections, and they all agree- they like them.
There are 2 styles available in this design. The 'TUHH' is a Conn-Helleberg spec. design, and they are the same dimensions, throats, cups, ect. The 'TUHHII' is the Shilke-Helleberg design, and copies their dimensions. I have a King 2341, and use the TUHHII. The other players have Yamaha, Sanders, Besson, and Conn brand tubas, and they happy with them, too. I previously had a Mirafone 186 5U (bigger bore than the King), and it played great with the TUHHII.
The concept (as I understand) was to make a good and heavy MP that absorbed any of the sensation of excess vibrations generated- and it does. One opinion (an instructor) was that it plays 'laser straight', and that pretty much sums it up.
Ultimately, like ANY mouthpiece, each player needs to try one, and then judge if it's right for them. All of us like ours!

[rodgeman]

I play a PT-88+. I switched from a Conn Helleberg 120S. I bought the 88 because that is the size I wanted and found a heavy weight mouthpiece I could afford. It works for me. My section leader in my community band borrowed it for a week and then bought one himself. I like it. I would probably by another. It feels more solid.

[Rick Denney]

Fundamental principle: When changing to a mouthpiece of a different interior shape, one cannot draw any conclusions about that mouthpiece's different weight.

Fundamental principle #2: Nobody ever won or lost a tuba gig because their mouthpiece was or was not heavy (or light).

Fundamental principle #3: What is true for a trumpet is not necessarily true for a tuba. Even if it really is true for a trumpet.

Fundamental principle #4: The player cannot be sure of the value of subtle effects from the player's perspective while playing. Too much of what we hear comes through our heads and through the sides of the instrument, while the people out front hear mostly what comes out of the bell.

Both heavy and light mouthpieces have had been the fads of the moment at different times. The inside shape of the mouthpiece is FAR more important than the outside shape, and people still argue (endlessly) about the relative merits of this inside shape versus that inside shape.

The sound an instrument makes is the combination of three frequency response curves: The spiky resonant one imposed by the instrument, the broadly humped curve from the mouthpiece, and the embouchure's even more broadbanded buzz. The buzz is where the tone is produced, and the instrument provides the bulk of the filtering and amplification to whittle the buzz down to the favorable few overtones (assuming they are present in the buzz to begin with). The mouthpiece is a relatively minor contributor.

That ultra-light plastic mouthpieces could provide reasonably good service, in that many prefer them and nobody is willing to say that they do not produce a reasonable tuba tone, demonstrates that the relatively smaller differences between various metal mouthpieces will have little effect.

Rick "answer to the question: when the heavyweight mouthpiece has just the right interior shape" Denney