|
Trumpet Mouthpieces By Ron Romm, Trumpeter, The Canadian Brass, October 1995 For the past fifteen days I have been on tour with the Canadian Brass in Germany. In addition to the concerts in various cities, we have been doing a group of workshops, and it seems that there is an international interest in our mouthpieces, and the questions indicate a need to open some discussion on the types and choices of mouthpieces available to the various levels and styles of players. I thought I would offer the following to our internet forum, so here goes: NOTES ON TRUMPET MOUTHPIECES Many people have asked us why we choose to play the shapes and designs of mouthpieces we play. While it would seem an easy question to answer with just a short phrase like "well, we have to play several styles of music during the course of our concert," or "we don't do much orchestral playing anymore," but there is much more to the answer than that type of statement can provide. When choosing a mouthpiece, one must naturally think about what his or her musical direction is to be, and obviously a lead player in a big band is going to have different needs from a player in a brass quintet or an orchestral player. This can be amplified even more by subdividing the big band into the lead player, section player, jazz book, etc., and subdividing the orchestral player into chamber orchestra or full symphony orchestra; even the section players in an orchestra will probably have a different approach to their mouthpieces from the principal player. Range, endurance, depth and breadth of sound, dynamics, are all considerations when choosing a mouthpiece. WHAT SEEMS TO BE A GENERAL GROUPING FOLLOWS The Orchestral trumpet players tend to gravitate toward the use of wide diameter mouthpieces with middle to deep cups. The Bach 1 or 1C or their equivalent are typically used by these players. This is often to accommodate the C trumpet; but usually it is what these players found worked for their teachers, mentors, colleagues, and finally, themselves. Often the backbores of these players' mouthpieces are "opened up," either throughout the backbore or from the bottom of the bore down. When we look down the back side of these mouthpieces, we can expect to see a large, curved shaped backbore. While this approach to mouthpiece construction provides a broad, expansive tone, as well as a wide pitch base, it often does not create much comfort or endurance. The prevailing trumpeters' philosophy of today is to be able to "cover" the orchestra, and these players (we all have favorite orchestral players that we love to listen to) do it beautifully. There seem to be no barriers for them; they are equipped to play in the orchestra as well as solos, and depending upon their schedules and talents, some commercial work too. All of this would add validity to their choices of mouthpiece design. The commercial player (when I was growing up the commercial player was also called a business player) is a musician with a very wide range of musical and technical needs. He or she may have a record or jingle date in the morning, a film date that afternoon, and a band concert or such in the evening; all in all, a commercial player has a very diversified schedule. Add to that the number of possible types of music this player is liable to run across in the course of a week, and you have a situation where the players' choice of equipment is critical for providing the player with access to his or her talents in a broader, if not even different way than the more specific demands of orchestral playing. Typically, the commercial trumpeter will not be using a huge, bored-out mouthpiece as his or her normal daily equipment; rims tend to be slightly smaller diameters (more like a 2C-5C equivalent size) and possibly a bit wider than stock, cups tend to be a bit shallower, and backbores show a Warbuton 7 or 8). Depending upon what type of instrument and what the typical repertoire is for these players, bore sizes will be ordinarily from 27 to 23. The purpose of all the preceding gab is to say that there is quite a bit of latitude for making choices of mouthpiece design; I have not gotten into rim shape, choice of silver or gold plating, choice of materials for the mouthpiece itself (brass, wood, acrylics, etc.). I personally believe that it is for the individual player to choose from the options available to him or her, given knowledge of basic human physiology and their specific physiology (mouth size, lip size, tooth shape, size, and position, skin type, etc.) and try to use logic: To start, it seems prudent not to select equipment that is too large or too small. Since brass chamber music playing seems (at least in late 1995) more like the commercial type of playing than the orchestral, my choice was to go toward the commercial style of mouthpiece. My rim is about the equivalent of a 2C or 5C (that description is confusing, but I moved the "crown" or high spot on my rim to the outside of my 5C style rim), but this rim is fatter than a normal Bach type rim. Fatter seemed to be the direction to go for me as I was feeling fatigued toward the end of our Canadian Brass concerts, and needed a bit more blood flow in my lip to get safely to the end of the show. William Vacchiano suggested that I get my rim "fattened" (widened) to the outside so as not to change the general feel of the mouthpiece, but give me more support as I became tired. I had the rim widened to 28mm (normal outside diameter is 27mm). Doing this solved a big problem for me; there is no assistance for the players in a brass quintet so it is incumbent upon the individual player to find the way to the end of the concert, both physically and psychologically. Now when I feel the fatigue, I know it is time to loosen my grip on the horn, stop pressing on the lip with the left biceps, and let the blood back into the lip. The fat rim helps; most of the time my energy returns for the next piece! Fred, incidentally, also uses a larger than standard outside diameter on his mouthpieces. The decision of how deep a cup to use takes serious consideration. Fred Mills and I have completely different styles of cups on our mouthpieces. Fred is currently using a variation of the "double cup" concept; my cup is more bowl shaped. Since I am quite sure that Fred will be contributing information in the future to this forum, I'll skip over his cup choice and tell you about mine. The concept of using a shallower cup to produce higher notes with less muscle stress appealed to me, but the idea of losing low register or tone did not. I opted for an undercut, shallower-than-normal (more like a "D" depth) cup which would provide the physical volume in the mouthpiece to produce a broad tone throughout the range of the instrument and give me a normal commercial trumpet player's range (from low F-sharp to a reliable high F or G above high C). So far, this combination has worked well in the quintet for me. The backbore to match this cup seems to be moderately open backbore without too much of a curve. Again, what works for me may not work for other players (but I really like it!) One observation that we in the Canadian Brass have made is there's been a general rush toward heavy weight on instruments and also on mouthpieces. We have done considerable empirical research (remember that the Canadian Brass plays over 125 concerts per year) investigating the premise that heavier is better, and the interim results indicate that while projection can be improved to a point by adding weight, certain aspects of the tone can change, and not necessarily for the better. The trumpet and mouthpiece are 2/3 of a team in action (the most important third is the player), so by varying the dimensions and positions of mass on the trumpet and/or mouthpiece, it is possible for one to create a nice balance of comfort and projection. When weight or mass is added to the mouthpiece, (or the position of that mass moved) to change that balance, a change of the overtones can take effect. The net result seems to be: the more mass on the lower part of the mouthpiece, the fewer resultant overtones. Increasing the mass in the upper area of the notes in the upper register. The overtones are what make our sound what it is, and it is very important to realize that the quest for "loudness" by adding mass to either the instrument or the mouthpiece indiscriminately can result in an unacceptable brightness and edge to our tone, a general dullness of sound, and/or a change in the perceived pitch centers of some notes. It is my personal belief that we should always strive for a beautiful tone (anybody can blast an ugly sound on a trumpet), and practices and procedures that diminish the beauty of my own tone can be easily discarded. Given these parameters, we player with weights on various parts of the mouthpieces and came up with a balanced mouthpiece that gave good projection without the edginess and brightness I was suggesting earlier. Chuck Daellenbach's "Arnold Jacobs "TM mouthpiece had an extremely pleasing visual shape. This shape has already been proven successful on Gene Watts' trombone mouthpiece, so as a further experiment we created a likeness of the exterior of this design for the trumpet mouthpiece. The sound of this mouthpiece is very clear, full, and experimentation confirm that this shape already had it's mass in the right places more than eighty years ago. By adapting this shape to our entire signature line of mouthpieces, we have accomplished a very nice balance of mass/projection/tone/aesthetics. More on Mouthpireces By Ron Romm from 1998 Some time ago we began addressing the issue of trumpet mouthpieces for our Internet readers. I discussed some general material relative to sound, endurance, range, and ease of playing, and concepts relative to a few styles of playing. In this letter I hope both to review some of this material, and visit briefly, rim shape and mass. Some general comments about mouthpiece shape and size:
RIM DESIGN
AND:
CONCLUSION
|
|
Copyright © 2007 - Trompete.com.pt - Todos os direitos reservado |