A while back someone (Mojo?) mentioned facing curves for the 
clarinet, deliberately introducing angles and flat spots to induce 
resistance.  So, I contacted my friend Tom Ridenour for his take on 
this subject.  

There are only a handful of people that really understand the 
acoustics of the saxophone, and I am fortunate to know, or at least 
have met, most of them:  Herb Couf, Peter Ponzol, Oleg, Steve 
Goodson, and Dave Schottle.  Tom Ridenour is of the same caliber in 
his understanding of the acoustics of the clarinet.

Check Tom's website www.ridenourclarinetproducts.com for his new reed 
finishing method.  Check out his bio, too.

This from an exchange of letters with Tom Ridenour:

Tom:  On the Yahoo Mouthpiece Workgroup, we were discussing that some 
clarinet facings are not a smooth arc of a circle, but rather, a 
series of flats blended together, one at the "break", a long flat, 
and another flat angle or a curve near the tip.

Any insight or observations into this?

Paul

And Tom answered:

Yes, I've thought about this quite a bit and I use the following 
concepts in my own mouthpiece work and find they yield a very 
practical and predictable result.
  
Curves increase resistance. The more acute the curve, the greater the 
resistance.  It's that simple. The closer you get to a straight line 
the greater the resistance reduction.  If I find a mouthpiece 
measures well but still plays stuffy or more resistant than I like or 
has a "funny, uncomfortable" resistance, I begin making correction by 
eliminating all the sharp breaks I can see. Remember, the sharp 
breaks are very acute curves par excellence, and therefore, create 
LOTS of resistance. 

Once I've blended out the sharp breaks (if any) I then proceed to 
reduce the acuteness of the curve of the mouthpiece facing in 
general. This is especially critical in the area of the facing where 
the reed leaves the facing in actual performance. Making the curve 
less acute between any two points decreases resistance considerably, 
increases the amount of air you can get between the reed and the 
facing and increases the amplitude and length of reed vibration.  The 
upshot of such adjustment in  practical terms is it makes the tone 
freer, deeper in color, increases responsiveness and enables the 
player to play a bit louder with a quality sound.  

I like decreasing resistance by reducing the acuteness of the subtle 
shapes of facings curves because other ways of decreasing resistance, 
such as increasing window size or widening the side wall aperture 
tends to cause the tone to become spread and uncentered.  Making 
subtle adjustments in the curve of the facing to reduce resistance, 
taking out sharp breaks and moderating the acuteness of the arcs of 
curves can accomplish a similar resistance reduction with a minimal 
loss of tonal center or definition in the shape. 

Of course, there's more to it than that, but that's my basic take on 
the matter. Of course, it should go without saying that the two rails 
of the mouthpiece should have the same curve (the facing should be 
symmetrical). Crooked or askew facings are nightmarish, creating all 
sort of problems in fitting reeds. Crooked facings also tend to 
respond unevenly, force embouchure bite to control, clarify and 
center the sound.  The bottom line is this: a symmetrical facing and 
well centered tip are non-negotiable requirements.

best regards
Tom

From Paul:  I have often thought that the non symmetrical facing was 
the reason for so many problems.  You would hear players say, "I can 
only find maybe one usuable reed out of a whole box."  Perhaps he 
found the only poorly cut reed that just happens to work well on the 
crooked facing of his mouthpiece?  I do know that symmetrical facings 
play better.

I will note that a mistake I made when first learning to reface, 
while stroking the mouthpiece on the sandpaper, was to not stop 
lifting the back of the mouthpiece soon enough as I approached the 
tip of the mouthpiece.  At the tip rail it is very easy to introduce 
an  extra flip up to the curve, and add a lot of resistance.  The 
technique I now use is that as soon as I see the marks on the paper 
go from two thin lines (the side rails) to a full width shading 
(meaning I am sanding on the tip rail), I hold the mouthpiece at a 
constant angle, no longer changing angle of the mouthpiece.  

Santy Runyon once told me of the special facing he used for Marshall 
Royal, lead alto of the Count Basie Orchestra.  All of those 
beautiful solos recorded by Royal were played with a Runyon designed 
and manufactured Conn Comet mouthpiece. 

The facing machine that Runyon used, and still uses, machines a flat 
surface for the table, then hits a stop, and rotates around a radius 
to form the facing curve, making it the arc of a perfect circle.  
Santy would touch up the facing, slightly lengthening the facing, 
starting with a stroke with the table flat on the sandpaper, and just 
slightly lifting the back of the mouthpiece.  He left most of the 
facing curve alone, and then at the tip, flattened the facing the 
last few mm's near and at the tip rail.  In this way the reed was 
eased into the curve of the facing, and at the tip, closed more 
easily.

I have a Conn Comet faced by Santy as described, and can tell you it 
blows easily, and responds to the most subtle changes.  As Marshall 
Royal said, "I can play the mouthpiece instead of the mouthpiece 
playing me."


Paul Coats

Paul,
Thanks for this article. It has been very informative.

I am still having fun here doing my first reface and fix on a mpc. I
will send pics and sound samples soon. I have documented it at every
stage.

Later
God Bless
Bootman
Richard Booth
www.bootmanmusic.com


-----Original Message-----
From: tenorman1952 [mailto:tenorman@...] 
Sent: Friday, 11 July 2003 11:25 PM
To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [MouthpieceWork] Clarinet Mouthpiece curves

A while back someone (Mojo?) mentioned facing curves for the 
clarinet, deliberately introducing angles and flat spots to induce 
resistance.  So, I contacted my friend Tom Ridenour for his take on 
this subject.  

There are only a handful of people that really understand the 
acoustics of the saxophone, and I am fortunate to know, or at least 
have met, most of them:  Herb Couf, Peter Ponzol, Oleg, Steve 
Goodson, and Dave Schottle.  Tom Ridenour is of the same caliber in 
his understanding of the acoustics of the clarinet.

Check Tom's website www.ridenourclarinetproducts.com for his new reed 
finishing method.  Check out his bio, too.

This from an exchange of letters with Tom Ridenour:

Tom:  On the Yahoo Mouthpiece Workgroup, we were discussing that some 
clarinet facings are not a smooth arc of a circle, but rather, a 
series of flats blended together, one at the "break", a long flat, 
and another flat angle or a curve near the tip.

Any insight or observations into this?

Paul

And Tom answered:

Yes, I've thought about this quite a bit and I use the following 
concepts in my own mouthpiece work and find they yield a very 
practical and predictable result.
  
Curves increase resistance. The more acute the curve, the greater the 
resistance.  It's that simple. The closer you get to a straight line 
the greater the resistance reduction.  If I find a mouthpiece 
measures well but still plays stuffy or more resistant than I like or 
has a "funny, uncomfortable" resistance, I begin making correction by 
eliminating all the sharp breaks I can see. Remember, the sharp 
breaks are very acute curves par excellence, and therefore, create 
LOTS of resistance. 

Once I've blended out the sharp breaks (if any) I then proceed to 
reduce the acuteness of the curve of the mouthpiece facing in 
general. This is especially critical in the area of the facing where 
the reed leaves the facing in actual performance. Making the curve 
less acute between any two points decreases resistance considerably, 
increases the amount of air you can get between the reed and the 
facing and increases the amplitude and length of reed vibration.  The 
upshot of such adjustment in  practical terms is it makes the tone 
freer, deeper in color, increases responsiveness and enables the 
player to play a bit louder with a quality sound.  

I like decreasing resistance by reducing the acuteness of the subtle 
shapes of facings curves because other ways of decreasing resistance, 
such as increasing window size or widening the side wall aperture 
tends to cause the tone to become spread and uncentered.  Making 
subtle adjustments in the curve of the facing to reduce resistance, 
taking out sharp breaks and moderating the acuteness of the arcs of 
curves can accomplish a similar resistance reduction with a minimal 
loss of tonal center or definition in the shape. 

Of course, there's more to it than that, but that's my basic take on 
the matter. Of course, it should go without saying that the two rails 
of the mouthpiece should have the same curve (the facing should be 
symmetrical). Crooked or askew facings are nightmarish, creating all 
sort of problems in fitting reeds. Crooked facings also tend to 
respond unevenly, force embouchure bite to control, clarify and 
center the sound.  The bottom line is this: a symmetrical facing and 
well centered tip are non-negotiable requirements.

best regards
Tom

From Paul:  I have often thought that the non symmetrical facing was 
the reason for so many problems.  You would hear players say, "I can 
only find maybe one usuable reed out of a whole box."  Perhaps he 
found the only poorly cut reed that just happens to work well on the 
crooked facing of his mouthpiece?  I do know that symmetrical facings 
play better.

I will note that a mistake I made when first learning to reface, 
while stroking the mouthpiece on the sandpaper, was to not stop 
lifting the back of the mouthpiece soon enough as I approached the 
tip of the mouthpiece.  At the tip rail it is very easy to introduce 
an  extra flip up to the curve, and add a lot of resistance.  The 
technique I now use is that as soon as I see the marks on the paper 
go from two thin lines (the side rails) to a full width shading 
(meaning I am sanding on the tip rail), I hold the mouthpiece at a 
constant angle, no longer changing angle of the mouthpiece.  

Santy Runyon once told me of the special facing he used for Marshall 
Royal, lead alto of the Count Basie Orchestra.  All of those 
beautiful solos recorded by Royal were played with a Runyon designed 
and manufactured Conn Comet mouthpiece. 

The facing machine that Runyon used, and still uses, machines a flat 
surface for the table, then hits a stop, and rotates around a radius 
to form the facing curve, making it the arc of a perfect circle.  
Santy would touch up the facing, slightly lengthening the facing, 
starting with a stroke with the table flat on the sandpaper, and just 
slightly lifting the back of the mouthpiece.  He left most of the 
facing curve alone, and then at the tip, flattened the facing the 
last few mm's near and at the tip rail.  In this way the reed was 
eased into the curve of the facing, and at the tip, closed more 
easily.

I have a Conn Comet faced by Santy as described, and can tell you it 
blows easily, and responds to the most subtle changes.  As Marshall 
Royal said, "I can play the mouthpiece instead of the mouthpiece 
playing me."


Paul Coats




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/ 

What angle does this end up being (approx. of course)? I am thinking of it as measured from the paper to the flat part of the table. I was reading an old post that a flip up end might help altissimo, but that looks like the only positive? 

 From the old and long post from Tenorman 1952 ----

> I will note that a mistake I made when first learning to reface, 
> while stroking the mouthpiece on the sandpaper, was to not stop 
> lifting the back of the mouthpiece soon enough as I approached the 
> tip of the mouthpiece.  At the tip rail it is very easy to introduce 
> an  extra flip up to the curve, and add a lot of resistance.  The 
> technique I now use is that as soon as I see the marks on the paper 
> go from two thin lines (the side rails) to a full width shading 
> (meaning I am sanding on the tip rail), I hold the mouthpiece at a 
> constant angle, no longer changing angle of the mouthpiece.  
> 

--- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, "fidlershorns" <grassinospam@...> wrote:
>
> What angle does this end up being (approx. of course)? I am thinking of it as measured from the paper to the flat part of the table. I was reading an old post that a flip up end might help altissimo, but that looks like the only positive? 
> 
>  From the old and long post from Tenorman 1952 ----
> 
> > I will note that a mistake I made when first learning to reface, 
> > while stroking the mouthpiece on the sandpaper, was to not stop 
> > lifting the back of the mouthpiece soon enough as I approached the 
> > tip of the mouthpiece.  At the tip rail it is very easy to introduce 
> > an  extra flip up to the curve, and add a lot of resistance.  The 
> > technique I now use is that as soon as I see the marks on the paper 
> > go from two thin lines (the side rails) to a full width shading 
> > (meaning I am sanding on the tip rail), I hold the mouthpiece at a 
> > constant angle, no longer changing angle of the mouthpiece.  
> >


The angle depends entirely on the facing the tip opening vs facing length.

In reference to Tom Ridenour's answer it is interesting he refers to the curve in two ways....1. the overall curve (I assume the diameter of the radial curve or other curve.   and 2. where flat spots meet....  I take it he has no problem with flat spots nor should he as they in themselves don't cause problems. It is when one flat spot hits another....this is the second type of curve he refers to. Blending this point reduces resistance. 
   I watched a youtube video by Michael ? on his refacing.  He utilizes flat spots all the time. For him flat spots are just how long he gets the same reading with his feelers. Perhaps they're not even flatspots but just the result of his measuring techniques and a gradual curve.    --- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, "rbooth" <rbooth@...> wrote:
>
> Paul,
> Thanks for this article. It has been very informative.
> 
> I am still having fun here doing my first reface and fix on a mpc. I
> will send pics and sound samples soon. I have documented it at every
> stage.
> 
> Later
> God Bless
> Bootman
> Richard Booth
> www.bootmanmusic.com
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: tenorman1952 [mailto:tenorman@...] 
> Sent: Friday, 11 July 2003 11:25 PM
> To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [MouthpieceWork] Clarinet Mouthpiece curves
> 
> A while back someone (Mojo?) mentioned facing curves for the 
> clarinet, deliberately introducing angles and flat spots to induce 
> resistance.  So, I contacted my friend Tom Ridenour for his take on 
> this subject.  
> 
> There are only a handful of people that really understand the 
> acoustics of the saxophone, and I am fortunate to know, or at least 
> have met, most of them:  Herb Couf, Peter Ponzol, Oleg, Steve 
> Goodson, and Dave Schottle.  Tom Ridenour is of the same caliber in 
> his understanding of the acoustics of the clarinet.
> 
> Check Tom's website www.ridenourclarinetproducts.com for his new reed 
> finishing method.  Check out his bio, too.
> 
> This from an exchange of letters with Tom Ridenour:
> 
> Tom:  On the Yahoo Mouthpiece Workgroup, we were discussing that some 
> clarinet facings are not a smooth arc of a circle, but rather, a 
> series of flats blended together, one at the "break", a long flat, 
> and another flat angle or a curve near the tip.
> 
> Any insight or observations into this?
> 
> Paul
> 
> And Tom answered:
> 
> Yes, I've thought about this quite a bit and I use the following 
> concepts in my own mouthpiece work and find they yield a very 
> practical and predictable result.
>   
> Curves increase resistance. The more acute the curve, the greater the 
> resistance.  It's that simple. The closer you get to a straight line 
> the greater the resistance reduction.  If I find a mouthpiece 
> measures well but still plays stuffy or more resistant than I like or 
> has a "funny, uncomfortable" resistance, I begin making correction by 
> eliminating all the sharp breaks I can see. Remember, the sharp 
> breaks are very acute curves par excellence, and therefore, create 
> LOTS of resistance. 
> 
> Once I've blended out the sharp breaks (if any) I then proceed to 
> reduce the acuteness of the curve of the mouthpiece facing in 
> general. This is especially critical in the area of the facing where 
> the reed leaves the facing in actual performance. Making the curve 
> less acute between any two points decreases resistance considerably, 
> increases the amount of air you can get between the reed and the 
> facing and increases the amplitude and length of reed vibration.  The 
> upshot of such adjustment in  practical terms is it makes the tone 
> freer, deeper in color, increases responsiveness and enables the 
> player to play a bit louder with a quality sound.  
> 
> I like decreasing resistance by reducing the acuteness of the subtle 
> shapes of facings curves because other ways of decreasing resistance, 
> such as increasing window size or widening the side wall aperture 
> tends to cause the tone to become spread and uncentered.  Making 
> subtle adjustments in the curve of the facing to reduce resistance, 
> taking out sharp breaks and moderating the acuteness of the arcs of 
> curves can accomplish a similar resistance reduction with a minimal 
> loss of tonal center or definition in the shape. 
> 
> Of course, there's more to it than that, but that's my basic take on 
> the matter. Of course, it should go without saying that the two rails 
> of the mouthpiece should have the same curve (the facing should be 
> symmetrical). Crooked or askew facings are nightmarish, creating all 
> sort of problems in fitting reeds. Crooked facings also tend to 
> respond unevenly, force embouchure bite to control, clarify and 
> center the sound.  The bottom line is this: a symmetrical facing and 
> well centered tip are non-negotiable requirements.
> 
> best regards
> Tom
> 
> From Paul:  I have often thought that the non symmetrical facing was 
> the reason for so many problems.  You would hear players say, "I can 
> only find maybe one usuable reed out of a whole box."  Perhaps he 
> found the only poorly cut reed that just happens to work well on the 
> crooked facing of his mouthpiece?  I do know that symmetrical facings 
> play better.
> 
> I will note that a mistake I made when first learning to reface, 
> while stroking the mouthpiece on the sandpaper, was to not stop 
> lifting the back of the mouthpiece soon enough as I approached the 
> tip of the mouthpiece.  At the tip rail it is very easy to introduce 
> an  extra flip up to the curve, and add a lot of resistance.  The 
> technique I now use is that as soon as I see the marks on the paper 
> go from two thin lines (the side rails) to a full width shading 
> (meaning I am sanding on the tip rail), I hold the mouthpiece at a 
> constant angle, no longer changing angle of the mouthpiece.  
> 
> Santy Runyon once told me of the special facing he used for Marshall 
> Royal, lead alto of the Count Basie Orchestra.  All of those 
> beautiful solos recorded by Royal were played with a Runyon designed 
> and manufactured Conn Comet mouthpiece. 
> 
> The facing machine that Runyon used, and still uses, machines a flat 
> surface for the table, then hits a stop, and rotates around a radius 
> to form the facing curve, making it the arc of a perfect circle.  
> Santy would touch up the facing, slightly lengthening the facing, 
> starting with a stroke with the table flat on the sandpaper, and just 
> slightly lifting the back of the mouthpiece.  He left most of the 
> facing curve alone, and then at the tip, flattened the facing the 
> last few mm's near and at the tip rail.  In this way the reed was 
> eased into the curve of the facing, and at the tip, closed more 
> easily.
> 
> I have a Conn Comet faced by Santy as described, and can tell you it 
> blows easily, and responds to the most subtle changes.  As Marshall 
> Royal said, "I can play the mouthpiece instead of the mouthpiece 
> playing me."
> 
> 
> Paul Coats
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 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/
>