Mouthpieces Mouthpiece choices - sweeping generalisations

[jools]

Just a thought...

Every player, horn, set-up and reed combination is going to have its own individual character, however in terms of mouthpiece choice there are some scientific reasons why some pieces sound 'modern' and some sound 'old fashioned'. What suggestions can you give to get specific sounds.

For example: if a player wanted to sound (more like) David Sanborn than, say, Johnny Hodges - what mouthpiece (generally speaking) is going to do that? and why? For an unwary player it seems a very long road without at least some vague signposts to point in different directions.

For example. On alto I've used everything from a brand new Berg Larsen to a 1930's Brillhart. The berg sounded bright (metallic?) and quite shrill at times, whereas the Brillharts have sounded "warm" (whatever that means) and rounded. But why? I know that materials, build design, bore dimensions and baffles are essential to the sound but it's the end result that I'm curious about. That personal, emotional reaction we all have. See how it compares. The saxophone sounds very different in every decade that it's been around. What part have the mouthpieces played in that development and more importantly- which names make which sound?

 

[suethesax]

Great discussion topic but too scientific for me.

I am a simple lass and talk about baffles baffles me, rails send me off the rails, bores bore me.

I'm sure one of our lovely cyber friends will have an answer - sorry it's not me 🙁

 

[Bobby G]

Not only the bore, but the shape of the bore must play a part in shaping the sound - round, horseshoe or a compound shape.

Also, the core tone of a mouthpiece can be varied a great deal by the player.

I know that in general a higher baffle = faster airflow = brighter sound, but someone else will need to provide the science bit.

 

[Pete Thomas]

I certainly don't know the science, but mostly it's to do with the way the air gets constricted or not once it's inside the mouthpiece. I don't believe material has any noticeable effect, but that's an argument that can never be put to any rigourous scientific testing. I don't know whether tip opening or rail curve have much to do with it but I know some people think it does.

Obviously a baffle gives you a bright sound as we all know probably, it narrows the air passage right at the point of entry into the mouthpiece.

But you also have other mouthpieces with much lower baffles, but some other way of adapting the airflow, e.g. the Selmer S80. This has a square chamber (and the earlier soloists had a horseshoe or train tunnel shaped chamber). I believe these also add brightness, but mostly when you are blowing harder (louder) IMO so it's a more dynamics related brightness.

But you will find that blowing harder on any mouthpieces causes the tone to change, not just get be a louder version of the original sound so it's a very complex business.

I'll stop now and leave room for more opinions.

 

[Jules]

Hark, what can I hear? Could it be the sound of someone opening a can of worms? We spend a lot of time tinkering with mouthpieces here at sax.co.uk and the more you look the more confusing it gets. In most cases different players can make identical set ups sound totally different (interesting you mention David Sanborn- one exception is that anyone playing a Dukoff D chamber always seems to sound David Sanborn-ish).
For example- Berg Larsens-. You find they can be shrill, I use one exactly because, for me, they don't get shrill when blasting over a loud band with bad monitoring (ok- There are 4 different baffle types & mines a /2). Go Figure, as they say!
One of the guys here has a vintage Otto link Florida, which plays like the ultimate rock & roll mouthpiece for most of us- which is totally not what we expected from a Link....
Can of worms, amigo, can of worms.... All I know is I can't stop tinkering iwth different set ups, even though I know i shouldn't... "....if it's not broke- don't fix it, if it's not broke- don't fix it, if it's not broke- don't fix it..."
:cry: :cry:

 

[Pete Thomas]

Typo in your signature nachoman

 

[spike]

Hopefully keep it short, I think that if the sound coming off the reed is not bright then any amount of baffle is not going to help much. The tone has been produced at the reed with the oral cavity acting as resonance chamber, so the mouthpiece acts as an envelope shaper. I worry about this all the time, and this is this week's theory.

 

[Jules]

Pete Thomas wrote:
Typo in your signature nachoman

I've been afflicted with the (false) belief that I can type for osme time now!

 

[jonf]

The player can make a huge difference. Two players blowing the same horn one after the other may well sound completely different. Shape of gob? I know my tone altered as my gob shape changed due to my departing teeth. For the better, as far as I can tell.....

 

[sandeha_lynch]

Was it Coltrane who said something like ... "I can tell you how that (sax/mouthpiece) sounds with my embouchure. Can't tell you how it will sound with yours."

Anybody know the exact quote?

 

[Linky Lee]

withregardto saxes sounding different in different decades. I think this is ecause of people's influences and their perception of tone gradually changes with that. I don't think it's a specific thing to do with mouthpiece desgn changing.

 

[Bobby G]

Linky_Lee wrote:
withregardto saxes sounding different in different decades. I think this is ecause of people's influences and their perception of tone gradually changes with that. I don't think it's a specific thing to do with mouthpiece desgn changing.

It's quite probably something to do with the available recording technology of the time, you sometimes have to 'interpret' the tone you are hearing; for instance, the quality of some of Charlie Parker's recordings is pretty dire - thin bass, tin-can drums etc - and you need to use your imagination, or sort of filter-out certain parts of the sound on the recording to get an idea of how he really sounded.

Also, there's the fashion/imitation aspect to tone; maybe after Bird many people either a) wanted to sound like him or b) develop his sound or c) sound nothing like him. Whichever, it's all in relation to Bird's sound, someone like Bird had such a huge influence. You can also see, after John Coltrane, how many tenor players used his sound as a basis for their own sound. Whether mouthpiece development followed these trends I don't know.

 

[Jules]

I've always thought that the electric guitar changed the way players approached playing the sax. King Curtis' tone was radically different from the R&B standard of previous players, and he was on record as saying that his approach was to make his sax sound like a guitar (makes sense considering his stuttery phrasing and edginess). Not quite sure where coltrane's brightness fits into this picture though... but from those two you get the 'default tone' of al ot of 1970s and onward players....

 

[jools]

All true. But as we all know, IN SPITE of the fact that much of the sound is coming from different factors, we still go in search of 'the Holy Grail' in the mistaken belief that the next mouthpiece will somehow transform our playing.

I don't think this is 'shiny kit syndrome' as very often these different mouthpieces do bring their own colour to our playing. What fascinates me is the overall impressions that we, as sax players, have towards different brands and types. 'Generally' we seem to have shared experiences (Bergs: angular and bright; Links: gutsy and mainstream; Guardala: difficult to control etc etc) and those kinds of sweeping statements seem based on... 'something'. That 'something' seems to affect us all, regardless of reed, horn or mouth.

 

[thomsax]

If you want to sound like particular saxplayer you have to start by booking a time at a plastic surgery clinic. Your mouthcavity, tongue, teeth and lips must be as close as possible .....


Maybe we are looking to deep into setups, horns, intonation. Just go out and have a good time!

ROCK ON!!

 

[Jules]

Ok- here are some sweeping statements....
Dukoff- funky and screamy (Sanborn and Candy Dulfer)
Bergs- Fat & rock'n'roll (Bobby Keyes & Sam Butera)
Metal Links- jazzy, with depth (Coltrane & Ben Webster)
Selmers- Classical

 

[Bobby G]

Meyer, jazzy. Beechler, loud! (but nice fat tone). Metal Brilhart, very cutting and also loud. Selmer, smoother with a bit of edge especially Super Session. All alto pieces on my Yamaha.

Jumbo Java on my tenor, again loud! But also very controllable from subtone to a roar.

(that's enough sweeping generalisations)

What are 'clatter keys' on a Weltklang bari?

 

[phil_edwards]

Bobby G wrote:
What are 'clatter keys' on a Weltklang bari?

Noisy keywork/mechanism I think.

Phil

 

[Bobby G]

Phil Edwards wrote:

Bobby G wrote:
What are 'clatter keys' on a Weltklang bari?

Noisy keywork/mechanism I think.

Phil

Oh, so it's an unintentional thing? I had a mental image of using the keys in a percussive way, I think the 'klang' part of Weltklang put it in my mind

 

[Jules]

WeltKlang is a great word, regardless of meaning- it just sounds good & is fun to say!