Mojo - I've been reading all the posts out at SOTW praising your work. 
Congratulations, you're starting to gather quite a following, after a 
relatively short period of time (ain't the internet great?).

What would you say are the most important aspects of refacing mouthpieces to 
understand and master, in order to help the most people?

Or, to put it another way: what corrections/modifications seem to have the 
most immediate impact on the playability of a mouthpiece?

Mike R.

_________________________________________________________________
The new MSN 8: smart spam protection and 2 months FREE*  
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail

> What would you say are the most important aspects of refacing 
mouthpieces to understand and master, in order to help the most 
people?

A. I think you need to be able to determine the areas in the 
mouthpiece that need to be changed to meet a player's goal.  The 
player is the client, and also yourself.

B. You then need the tools and skill to make the changes.

These 2 steps may seem obvious and not specific enough to help a new 
refacer.  But I think you will agree, if either one is done poorly, 
the work will not turn out well.

> Or, to put it another way: what corrections/modifications seem to 
have the  most immediate impact on the playability of a mouthpiece?
 
1. If the table is severely convex, fixing it will usually show a 
dramatic improvement.  This fixes leaks and ligature placement 
sensitivity.  Concave tables are more forgiving.  I prefer flat 
tables.

2. Most sax players like free-blowing pieces. By plotting the facing 
curve on a PC, I can see where the biggest facing curve problems are 
graphically.  This is better than looking at a column of measurement 
numbers, which is traditionally done.  By working on the parts of the 
curve that are most uneven (they have bumps and kinks) the piece will 
play much better.

3. Next, the tip rail should be defined.  I cut the tip to match the 
end of a reed.  I slightly relieve the area after the tip rail.  If 
there are complaints of "chirps", I go more.  Roll-over baffles seem 
to get in the way more often than not.  The tip rail can be as thin 
as .020" for fast articulation and response.  But you risk not being 
able to use all brands of reeds since they will hang off the tip or 
leak at the tip rail.  .030" is more forgiving.

These first 3 steps will probably get you 80% of what you are going 
to get out of the piece.

4. The next level would be to change the facing curve so that it is 
closer to a perfect radial arc, if it is not.  Flat sections would 
need to be removed by cutting the entire curve and table except the 
flat section.  You also need to have a good facing length and tip 
goal to construct a good radial facing curve.  I find my own 
calculated lay schedules to be better than measured and shared ones.

Beyond this, a piece can benefit from baffle work (more or less), tip 
rail work for improved altissimo response, wider window/thinner side 
rails for a bigger sound, tip work to not be too blunt (but not too 
sharp either).  The side rails should also not be much wider than the 
reed for the best response.  There are also situations where the 
facing can benefit from deviating from a radial arc.  But these are 
special situations, not the norm.

I think it's pretty clear from this post where Mojo's success originates ;-}

Toby
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Keith Bradbury" <kwbradbury@...>
To: <MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, July 10, 2003 12:10 AM
Subject: [MouthpieceWork] Re: Secrets of Mojo's Success ;-)


> > What would you say are the most important aspects of refacing
> mouthpieces to understand and master, in order to help the most
> people?
>
> A. I think you need to be able to determine the areas in the
> mouthpiece that need to be changed to meet a player's goal.  The
> player is the client, and also yourself.
>
> B. You then need the tools and skill to make the changes.
>
> These 2 steps may seem obvious and not specific enough to help a new
> refacer.  But I think you will agree, if either one is done poorly,
> the work will not turn out well.
>
> > Or, to put it another way: what corrections/modifications seem to
> have the  most immediate impact on the playability of a mouthpiece?
>
> 1. If the table is severely convex, fixing it will usually show a
> dramatic improvement.  This fixes leaks and ligature placement
> sensitivity.  Concave tables are more forgiving.  I prefer flat
> tables.
>
> 2. Most sax players like free-blowing pieces. By plotting the facing
> curve on a PC, I can see where the biggest facing curve problems are
> graphically.  This is better than looking at a column of measurement
> numbers, which is traditionally done.  By working on the parts of the
> curve that are most uneven (they have bumps and kinks) the piece will
> play much better.
>
> 3. Next, the tip rail should be defined.  I cut the tip to match the
> end of a reed.  I slightly relieve the area after the tip rail.  If
> there are complaints of "chirps", I go more.  Roll-over baffles seem
> to get in the way more often than not.  The tip rail can be as thin
> as .020" for fast articulation and response.  But you risk not being
> able to use all brands of reeds since they will hang off the tip or
> leak at the tip rail.  .030" is more forgiving.
>
> These first 3 steps will probably get you 80% of what you are going
> to get out of the piece.
>
> 4. The next level would be to change the facing curve so that it is
> closer to a perfect radial arc, if it is not.  Flat sections would
> need to be removed by cutting the entire curve and table except the
> flat section.  You also need to have a good facing length and tip
> goal to construct a good radial facing curve.  I find my own
> calculated lay schedules to be better than measured and shared ones.
>
> Beyond this, a piece can benefit from baffle work (more or less), tip
> rail work for improved altissimo response, wider window/thinner side
> rails for a bigger sound, tip work to not be too blunt (but not too
> sharp either).  The side rails should also not be much wider than the
> reed for the best response.  There are also situations where the
> facing can benefit from deviating from a radial arc.  But these are
> special situations, not the norm.
>
>
>
> Got a Mouthpiece Work question?  Send it to MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
>
> Visit the site at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/MouthpieceWork to see the
Files, Photos and Bookmarks relating to Mouthpiece Work.
>
> To see and modify your groups, go to http://groups.yahoo.com/mygroups
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
>