Mouthpieces Who believes in Link Chops?

[jthole]

I’ve played a HR Link (or very similar) on tenor for as long as I can remember. For me, that kind of mouthpiece works. The last few years it’s been a Phil-Tone Eclipse. I don’t know about Link chops, I just know that this style of mouthpiece works for me.

For baritone, I used to play a Meyer HR, but on my current Keilwerth I also switched to a HR Otto Link. For me (behind the sax), it brings out the sound of the Keilwerth more.

 

[dexdex]

Yes, I believe in “Link chops”. To me the concept is about developing embouchure and airstream to the degree that one can get the widest form of expression from a tenor.

I admit I had never read or heard this specific expression, but I totally agree, and the quote above is a good summary.
I personally played on brighter pieces on tenor before moving to STMs and now their V16 counterpart. You can achieve quite some brightness with the appropriate reeds and airstream.
Bob Reynolds is a good example of someone having a very vivid (if not bright) tone on a vanilla Link TE.

 

[flat7]

Interesting what you consider a bright sound, I hear as dark (refering to Bob Reynolds here). Once he puts it on his SBA Its very dark. I have slowly moved towards the brighter sound spectrum for many years now, where would this end??

 

[dexdex]

Interesting what you consider a bright sound, I hear as dark (refering to Bob Reynolds here). Once he puts it on his SBA Its very dark. I have slowly moved towards the brighter sound spectrum for many years now, where would this end??

Notice I used vivid (= not dead or dull).
This is a good point. Sheer static brightness on a steady note is one aspect, the response quickness is another one.
What strikes me in Bob’s playing is how agile and .. vivid he sounds on a mouthpiece which from my own experience I’d rather consider … dead. Clearly his amazing chops.

 

[Ivan]

Based on the comments above, is the rule ... Otto Link can be a pig to play until the embouchure matures?

...but does a good 'Otto Link' embouchure skill cope with not just an Otto Link, but any other pig-to-play mouthpiece?

 

[turf3]

Based on the comments above, is the rule ... Otto Link can be a pig to play until the embouchure matures?

...but does a good 'Otto Link' embouchure skill cope with not just an Otto Link, but any other pig-to-play mouthpiece?

That's an awful negative characterization.

I'd prefer to say that the Link style mouthpiece (lowish roll-over baffle and moderate size chamber) provides a rich and flexible tone which can be more or less bright and penetrating as needed. On the other hand, it will not provide to the player with a weak embouchure and puny airstream the kind of pseudo-volume that a high baffle small chamber mouthpiece can appear to provide; but that kind of mouthpiece doesn't really yield a pleasing tone for the player with a weak embouchure and puny airstream, either.

In other words, all sax mouthpiece designs rely on a quality embouchure and airstream to give pleasing results.

 

[skeller047]

Based on the comments above, is the rule ... Otto Link can be a pig to play until the embouchure matures?

...but does a good 'Otto Link' embouchure skill cope with not just an Otto Link, but any other pig-to-play mouthpiece?

My feeling is this - many Links are pigs, tubby sounding and resistant. The ones that aren’t, play well for anyone.

To get an good jazz sound on a good Link requires the right combination of firm embouchure muscles with loose jaw (not a contradiction), the right placement of the mouthpiece in the mouth, and good strong air support. Of course, ANY mouthpiece will benefit from this approach…. including tubby, piggy Links.

Without the correct approach, Links tend to sound amateurish. Other mouthpieces, that try to steer your sound in a particular direction, may sound better with undeveloped chops, but good embouchure, voicing and breath support are required for any piece to sound its best.

If you feel that Links are “pig-to-play”, try some good ones. If you still feel that way, investigate your chops.

 

[Saxlicker]

The last 2 hit on some of the stuff I was leaning towards and tried suggest in my early posts in this thread (but probably missed the target).
In that...
An inexperienced player will likely get on with other mouthpieces easier but could strike lucky with a good link. Though plenty will find them too stuffy, tubby etc and even quite exhausting compared to what they are after in their sound concept.
Next up you have players who have developed a reasonable embouchure and air stream and get way more out of mouthpiece set ups than the inexperienced player but may still suffer a similar fate so far as links are concerned.

Thats the point where I believe subtle (even sub conscious) adaptations are made when blowing on link style pieces that can really draw you in. You know like when you try any 'new to you' piece, you usually (and should) give it some time and you just happen to make subtle adjustments. So in that respect we do this all the time. It has nothing to do with the brand of mouthpiece. But some how with a link like piece, there is still the stuffy dull hurdle not present in so many others. So many will say why bother? why persevere? I get on fine with my Vandoren.
Of course Links are definitely different from each other but players who remain curios, searching for a certain sound concept can (with good air stream and embouchure etc) suddenly find themselves getting on with a link at this point owing to the control there development permits.
Reaping reward from this point onward, where the stuffy dull feel has been overcome, transformed and fundamentally tweaked into rich character within the sound concept............. is to me where the term 'Link Chops' is born.

There will always be exceptions where some people just pick up a link from day one and grow with it. Some will actually like what is described as stuffy and tubby (amateurish?) by others. On the flip side some truly great players with all the air stream support and good embouchure who may never like a link character.
Some will never question their set up regardless of what they use.

 

[flat7]

Take away the resistance from the piece and to me the tone gets too thin and lifeless without texture. But hey, it speaks so easy.

 

[Pete Thomas]

I think it is quite simple really, in order to get a decent sound from a Link is not specifically down to having a well developed embouchure and airstream - those are needed for a good sound on any mouthpiece.

In other words nobody should think they aren't good enough to play one.

But with Links I find you need to shove them further in your mouth.

All well and good as that way I found I can get a less stuffy or tubby sound but at the cost of having a more versatile sound.

 

[Targa]

Ignorance is bliss.
If I'd read threads like this ten years ago I might not have bought the links for my alto and tenor which are the only mps I've used since.
As far as I know I make quite a nice noise with them.

 

[flat7]

My links have learned me a few important lessons. One is ,breath properly and the speed of the air alter the sound. A pea shooter mpc with small chamber and high baffle would never allowed le to work for the tone enough to develop a good airstream. Otto Link for the win!

I also learned that some of them are really bad, a few are exceptional tough.

 

[Pete Thomas]

A pea shooter mpc with small chamber and high baffle would never allowed le to work for the tone enough to develop a good airstream.

I don't quite understand this. I see the term pea shooter in regard to mouthpieces and is usually used pejoratively. (is that the right word?). I mean you don't hear people say I use a pea shooter mouthpiece.

Presumably it does mean high baffle small (narrow chamber) and in reality this is just a different kind of internal shape to the traditional mouthpiece. To make one work well you need just as good an airstream and embouchure as you do with a bigger chamber lower baffle.

Is a Dave Guardala Studio a pea shooter? I use to use one for quite a while and I could still work on my embouchure and airstream.

 

[flat7]

I don't quite understand this. I see the term pea shooter in regard to mouthpieces and is usually used pejoratively. (is that the right word?). I mean you don't hear people say I use a pea shooter mouthpiece.

Presumably it does mean high baffle small (narrow chamber) and in reality this is just a different kind of internal shape to the traditional mouthpiece. To make one work well you need just as good an airstream and embouchure as you do with a bigger chamber lower baffle.

Is a Dave Guardala Studio a pea shooter? I use to use one for quite a while and I could still work on my embouchure and airstream.

The word pea shooter make me think of small,narrow chamber mouthpiece like a pea shooter actually, Haha. Good for you, but to me, a too free blowing mouthpiece i should say, would never develop my air stream to the state it is today without playing on Otto links. I dont know about Guardalas , I have never tried one.

 

[Pete Thomas]

a too free blowing mouthpiece i should say, would never develop my air stream to the state it is today without playing on Otto links.

Too free blowing is different thing though and the only realistic way to evaluate or measure it is to go beyond just a mouthpiece and consider it holistically - most importantly mouthpiece and reed as a combination (setup).

If a "setup" is too free blowing it's easy to make it less free blowing by using a harder reed or wider tip. Or shorter facing.

I always recommend that some mouthpieces (mostly small bore high baffle) do work best with wide tip shortish facing.

Having said that I'm not a big fan of using harder reeds just to get more resistance (ie less free-blowing) because I always say that you need to develop your embouchure and airstream to overcome the "too free blowing aspect" and be able to properly play soft reeds.

 

[Pete Effamy]

I had a go on a few Links over many years - always very stuffy and resistant. I wasn't young or undeveloped as a player, so my conclusion is that they were not good.

As for airstream etc, I can't imagine hearing a really nice sound from a player on a high baffle mouthpiece, and then thinking that he didn't have a decent technique. Surely a poor technique will always render a poor sound??

As for chambers, and to baffle or not to baffle - a mouthpiece (and reed combo) will make demands from the player, and should the player decide to stick with the mouthpiece (for a whole variety of reasons - bright, dark, loud, fluffy, easy-speaking, easy-control etc) then they may well need to adapt to it.

Many players have adapted to a setup that wasn't a good fit in the first place - again, for a variety of reasons. Others don't. They go for a setup that plays straight away. This isn't necessarily a marker for poor chops or airstream.

 

[Pete Effamy]

Actually, I’ve always thought that an undeveloped player sounds worse on a narrow chamber high baffle mouthpiece

 

[Pete Thomas]

Many players have adapted to a setup that wasn't a good fit in the first place - again, for a variety of reasons. Others don't. They go for a setup that plays straight away. This isn't necessarily a marker for poor chops or airstream.

This is very true.

One thing I've found is people used to links who contact me about a PPT often say they "play 7*" when it makes more sense to say they play a 7* Link - because (unless they just give ups dating and return it) most of these players end up on an 8* or 9* PPT.

 

[flat7]

All of my favorite tenor players played on Otto Links. Dexter Gordon, Coltrane, Arnett Cobb, Illinois Jacquet, Chris Potter, Rick Margitza...list goes on. Did Dexter sound bad on his Conn 10m/Dukoff setup, hell no but i just prefer the heavy sound of the selmer/Link combo. His Conn setup was more free blowing i think resulting in a "lighter" sound.

A nice side effect of resistance is that when you hit it with a healthy breath of air you get sort of a percussive effect.

 

[Wonko]

This is very true.

One thing I've found is people used to links who contact me about a PPT often say they "play 7*" when it makes more sense to say they play a 7* Link - because (unless they just give ups dating and return it) most of these players end up on an 8* or 9* PPT.

I play an Otto Link (7), and about 2 years ago I got myself a PPT 7*. I found the tip opening more than enough.
I played the PPT for about a year, but I found it too bright for my liking. So after that year I had my Otto link refaced to get the flaws out of it and returned to the Otto Link.
The year that I played the PPT I was playing a Yamaha (YTS32). About 6 months ago I got me a Conn 10m, quite a different beast. Yesterday I got my PPT out just to check something about my embouchure/tone that I am working on. And I found it less bright than it was on my Yamaha.
BTW, I consider myself no expert, just an experienced beginner.
The PPT helped to point out some flaws in my embouchure, and convinced me that a decently made/finished mouthpiece play better than my standard Otto Link (Tone Edge).