Now aside from the obvious:
Small makes high notes easy, but make you sound bright
And
Big makes you dark, and your high range goes flat
I know that there are many aspects from rim size, bite, then the concave part of the cup (cup/cone) and the convex curve when it reaches the throat then there is the diameter of the throat, the taper of the back-bore, its length, gap... so on.
I also know that every one of these variables change the characteristics of a mouthpiece many ways, but personally I have been having trouble with a "dead" tone, and have been trying to figure out what I need to make it have some more life. And some how I don't think it's to shorten the gap (what ever that means). Plus I think this might be a good topic to talk about.
As a general brass teacher and as a collector I have played quite a number of instruments, and I have been around quite a number of mouthpieces, even if I now use much fever mouthpieces than instruments.
Part of the lesson learned through 44 years with brasses is this one:
If the sound is dead or lacks life, then the fault is NOT with the mouthpiece, as long as the right size of mouthpiece has been chosen at a category level. A trumpet mouthpiece certainly may make a euphonium or a tuba sound dead. But not a trumpet. There also may be a matter of national schools involved: The older German school used trumpet mouthpieces with an extremely narrow throat. I hardly could make a trumpet speak through a such mouthpiece,
My analyses of dead sound always found the root of the problem in an inconsistent and under-compressed airstream, which cannot generate enough acoustical energy to activate the upper partials. A non-efficient embouchure can be a part of the overall equation.
One reason could be a leaky instrument with an obvious reason being a badly fit mouthpiece.
I am old enough to have experienced extreme poverty in post-war Germany. Coming back to my own country in 1958 certainly was an improvement, but compared to now it still was a relative poverty. I started out on two successive rotary valved alto trombones, both made well ahead of WWII and not too well maintained, as they had had no cases for the first decades of their existence. The second specimen was very good, but it died in sound after some time. I could make a few halts to that process by rolling bandaid/plaster around the obviously sore spots. But the instrument was moribund, and I bought my own first instrument for the gift money from my confirmation.
When I started out as a band leader in 1972 in a very run-down section of the same Christian youth organisation, some students still played such old instruments. Very frustrating to teach them on equipment that not even I could make sound reasonable. Fortunately I found a good fundraiser relationship with the manager of the section.
Conclusion: leaky instruments will cause a dead sound.
But to be honest: a dead sound most often comes from a lazy or badly educated player not providing sufficient air support!
There are so many aspects to that technique element, that it cannot be handled in a posting like this one. However:
Some players have a "bright" sound with no fullness. They disguise a too shallow air support by narrowing the cross sections of their innerbody airpaths.
Some players practise too little or are just returned from a hiatus. Their embouchures are not flexible enough to let an otherwise sound airsupport generate a full overtone spectre.
I have had to fight lung problems over a few decades. At first I played through my bad periods, but I had to realise, that I developed too many compensatory techniques, which had to be un-trained, when I was back in shape. Now I either play full tilt or don't play at all. One benefit of my experiences has been, that I can relax more than most other players. An obvious benefit in tuba contexts is, that I don't have to play loud to be heard. My sound is so rich, that I can create foundation for a smaller band even if I never play above mf.
By now this gets long and I haven't even touched the mouthpiece question yet:
Some popular explanations of brasses have the lips as the sound generator, and the instrument as the amplifier.
The mouthpiece also is the equaliser! The most efficient ones are the funnel shaped ones, because they don't put hindrances to the airstream. The depth of the funnel determines the favouring of the upper and lower frequencies. Basically the upper frequencies always come well through a funnel shaped mouthpiece. An allegedly shallow trombone mouthpiece like the Bach 12C for trombone also is a funnel shaped mouthpiece. A deeper funnel offers a better passage for the lower frequencies, but for me the sound still is too bright with a PT-50 on my Eb and BBb basses, none of them having sissy bores. So I have made my own backbore modifications with very simple tools.
Many players however detest the funnel shape mothpieces, because they are exhausting to play.
And now I get truly polemic: The most efficient set up is the ultimate large bore and wide bell US tuba, often wrapped in circles, played with a large funnel mouthpiece. Very rich sound, no needs to play loud.
Is there a flip side of the coin? Certainly: such set ups provide a full foundation, but they are not equaly efficient in painting distinct melodic lines because they lack edge. Edge being a narrower band of formants supposed to be distinct for a given instrument type.
The solution has been the application of rotary valve tubas. I have many rotary valved instruments myself. I like many of them, also soundwise. My Syhre corno da caccia and my Conn 28D have been very good tools for me. But I still hate the concept of rotary valves.
They distort the airpath and create turbulences. Their only reason for survival is that turbulences are experienced as creating resistance. Hence the rotary valved instruments have been experienced as less exhausting playingwise. And that despite they by any applicance of physical thinking are not very efficient.
Combine a rotary valved tuba with a cup shaped mouthpiece, which also creates turbulences and hence resistance, and you have created the dream tool for the weekend warrior: resistance and an unpleasant sound, which however owns the ultimate quality: your old and deaf mum can hear you across the plaza.
Why? Because this inefficient set-up narrows the sound down to an extremely narrow band of the above mentioned formants. Delivering the ultimate goal of the egoist tubist: a cutting edge.
I never maintained to deliver the full and edge-free truth! If your eyes and your behind could provide stamina enough, you just experienced a political posting!
Klaus
Last edited by imperialbari on Sun Jan 23, 2005 8:43 pm, edited 3 times in total.
Miraphone 5050 - Warburton BJ/RF mpc YEP-641S(recently sold), DE mpc (102 rim; I-cup; I-9 shank) Symphonic Band of the Palm Beaches: "Always play with a good tone, never louder than lovely, never softer than supported." - author unknown.
). Plus I think this might be a good topic to talk about.
