It's often said that the sound comes from the player, and I think that statement is mostly true, but not completely.  Obviously top players have their own personal preferences for horns and mouthpieces (excluding sponsor influenced choices), so the equipment must be at least a fine polish part of the formula.  In the case of Pete Christlieb however, I think it (the mouthpiece) is a substantial factor in how he sounds.  Don't take me wrong here. I'm sure that with any other set-up, Pete would still be one of the greatest tenor players ever, IMO, but, (and it is to his credit that he chose this combination) I think that it is his mouthpiece/reed combination which which enables him to sound, if not better that every other player, at least different, and in a very special way.  

So what is it then, that one
 hears when Pete plays, that makes him so  unique?   It's impossible to describe accurately in words, but if one must try, then the best way might be to say rather, what one does not hear, or what his sound lacks.  When Pete Christlieb plays, one does not hear a saxophone.  One hears pure music that is coming out of a saxophone.   Pete's sound lacks the very slight tonal, responsive, dynamic, and intonational limitations that one eventually hears in most other players, imposed upon them because the saxophone is not a perfect instrument.  Limitations like - Which register am I in?  Is the octave key down?  Is this D2? Is this open C#?  Is this a low B at pianissimo?  Do I have to use an alternate fingering here?  Is the horn going to back up on me now?  Can I make these interval leaps?  Is my articulation going to be clean?  Ok, he's a big tall guy, with a larger body resonance cavity than most players.  That is something, but I can't
 attribute everything to that.

What's so special about his set-up then, a Berg Larson 130/0 with a plasticover 2-1/2 reed?  Lots of great players use Bergs and sound wonderful, but not quite like Pete, with the exception of maybe Plas Johnson (160/2) almost as distinctive, and Lennie Pickett (130/0), distinctive but quite a different style.  What is it about a 130/0 that makes Pete sound different than Gato (105/?)?  it's a bigger opening for sure. 

The Berg has a small chamber, and with normal openings (110), one has to pull out quite a bit to tune and get close to the correct mouthpiece chamber volume.  Most of the chamber volume then is in the throat.  Is that good?  Should be.  That's another movie though.  With a 2-1/2 reed, a 130/0 is like a bassoon reed, or at least half of one.   The opening is so large that the reed compliance makes up a good portion of the mouthpiece volume. Instead of being just static volume in the throat it is dynamic volume right at the reed and that volume is supremely malleable.  With the slightest alteration of his embouchure and/or his vocal tract, he can alter this volume and the linked body resonance chamber to make adjustments for optimal resonance alignment on any note.  While every good player does this to some extent, Pete's setup is just that much more effective.  So, what we hear are harmonic regimes being formed almost instantly, with minimal
 loss of acoustical energy due to misaligned resonance peaks, and almost no inharmonic partials, unless intentionally thrown in, and everything under the complete control of this master musician.  

Could it be just coincidence that his father, Don Christlieb, was the great bassoonist and reed specialist?  Maybe he said to Pete once, "Pete, if you make that thing into the equivalent of 1/2 a bassoon reed, where the reed cavity compensates for most of the chamber volume, and you learn to control it, you will get a much better sound."

Ernie Watts (.160" Link) has this thing going for him as well, but not with the same tonal results, since he uses Fibracane or Bari synthetic reeds.  

That's something to think about.......




      

So you can change the volume of the reed compliance?  I was under the impression that that was determined by the facing curve.  Seems to me it would alter with the amplitude of the reed's vibration, and I suppose you could choke down on the facing to make it smaller.   I'm having trouble visualizing how vocal tract changes would change it.

Also, I thought the mouthpiece volume required by the saxophone to play in tune was static, and you would get better harmonic alignment at this volume than any other regardless of the note. 

I wonder how a piece where the proportion of mpc volume made up of reed compliance was maximized would sound.


--- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, MartinMods <lancelotburt@...> wrote:

>   With a 2-1/2 reed, a 130/0 is like a bassoon reed, or at least half of one.   The opening is so large that the reed compliance makes up a good portion of the mouthpiece volume. Instead of being just static volume in the throat it is dynamic volume right at the reed and that volume is supremely malleable.  With the slightest alteration of his embouchure and/or his vocal tract, he can alter this volume and the linked body resonance chamber to make adjustments for optimal resonance alignment on any note.  While every good player does this to some extent, Pete's setup is just that much more effective.  So, what we hear are harmonic regimes being formed almost instantly, with minimal
>  loss of acoustical energy due to misaligned resonance peaks, and almost no inharmonic partials, unless intentionally thrown in, and everything under the complete control of this master musician.  

This html message parsed with html2text ---------------------------I'm not sure what's meant by "volume of the reed compliance", or how volume
would be affected by tip opening (other than the fact that opening an existing
tip would reduce mpc volume). I've only ever considered the volume of the
mouthpiece itself - as if you taped across the facing and filled it with water
from the shank end, accounting for how far it's pushed on the neck cork.  
  
DT  
  
frymorgan wrote:

> So you can change the volume of the reed compliance? I was under the
> impression that that was determined by the facing curve. Seems to me it
> would alter with the amplitude of the reed's vibration, and I suppose you
> could choke down on the facing to make it smaller. I'm having trouble
> visualizing how vocal tract changes would change it.  
>  
>  Also, I thought the mouthpiece volume required by the saxophone to play in
> tune was static, and you would get better harmonic alignment at this volume
> than any other regardless of the note.  
>  
>  I wonder how a piece where the proportion of mpc volume made up of reed
> compliance was maximized would sound.  
>  
>  \\--- In
> [MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com](mailto:MouthpieceWork%40yahoogroups.com),
> MartinMods ...> wrote:  
>  
>  > With a 2-1/2 reed, a 130/0 is like a bassoon reed, or at least half of
> one. The opening is so large that the reed compliance makes up a good
> portion of the mouthpiece volume. Instead of being just static volume in the
> throat it is dynamic volume right at the reed and that volume is supremely
> malleable. With the slightest alteration of his embouchure and/or his vocal
> tract, he can alter this volume and the linked body resonance chamber to
> make adjustments for optimal resonance alignment on any note. While every
> good player does this to some extent, Pete's setup is just that much more
> effective. So, what we hear are harmonic regimes being formed almost
> instantly, with minimal  
>  > loss of acoustical energy due to misaligned resonance peaks, and almost
> no inharmonic partials, unless intentionally thrown in, and everything under
> the complete control of this master musician.  
>  
>

I'm thinking the distance the reed travels should be considered.  Don't we consider the volume between the reeds on double reed instruments?

All the published experts agree.  Under playing conditions, the actual volume of the substitution is significantly larger than the physical geometric volume of the closed-reed mouthpiece.  Benade did extensive experiments with a soprano sax mouthpiece (of known volume - up to where the inserted tube ended) and various lengths of cylindrical tubing.  The total volume of mouthpiece + tubing was calculated, thus he was able to predict the frequency of each played tube.   The actual played pitch however, for every mode of every tube was always significantly lower than what was calculated..   He concluded that the actual functional volume of the substitution included also the reed compliance (the reed and it's entire range of motion), and to some extent, the player's vocal tract.  There are various published studies on the reed's interaction with the players vocal tract - Benade, Nederveen, Fletcher, Scavone, etc. 

So, according to scientific studies, the reed is coupled between two (actually 3 if you include the substitution and it's own resonance) resonating chambers, the mouthpiece/instrument body, and the player's vocal tract.   The horn body is a quasi static resonator for each fingering.  I say quasi, since whether knowingly or not, (and if knowingly, then more-so) one uses the opening  and closing of keys at various speeds to shape notes.  The mouthpiece is static.  The reed compliance and the player's vocal tract are dynamically alterable and it is here that the developed player can influence all aspects of the sound - the speed and manner with which  one establishes stable and optimised (mostly desireable) harmonic regimes.   

You know this from playing tenor, Morgan.  You don't just blow into the horn and move your fingers.  To sound good, you have to shape each note in your body resonance chamber first.  Frank Catalano discusses this in some depth here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m0t3M0xxS5M

and in the multi-part SaxQuest clinic he did, also availble on youtube.  He calls it, "focusing the air", or, "accellerating the air", but what he is actually describing is just changing the shape of the body resonator, and then perhaps changing the intensity of air pressure (which are 2 separate things) , and some alterations of reed compliance (embouchure control).

The saxophone is imperfect acoustically.  When you have a good one, you have a mean starting point in which the resonances are more or less equally aligned for every note - an average - a compromise.  The poor to average player will be satisfied with that arrangement and just blow.  The advanced player who really gets to know his horn, realizes that he must make fine (sometimes almost imperceivable) adjustments in order to optimise the alignment for each note.  Each note has it's own personality.  

Changes in reed compliance are mostly minute, and include different types of artiulation, variances in position of the lip on the reed, variences of pressure amount and direction - tight corners vs. loose embouchure, etc.



--- On Wed, 9/2/09, Dan Torosian <dtorosian@...t> wrote:

From: Dan Torosian <dtorosian@...>
Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: Pete Christlieb's Sound/Set-Up Analysis
To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
Date: Wednesday, September 2, 2009, 12:48 PM






 




    
                  



I'm not sure what's meant by "volume of the reed compliance", or how
volume would be affected by tip opening (other than the fact that
opening an existing tip would reduce mpc volume).  I've only ever
considered the volume of the mouthpiece itself - as if you taped across
the facing and filled it with water from the shank end, accounting for
how far it's pushed on the neck cork.



DT



frymorgan wrote:
 

  
  So you can change the volume of the reed compliance? I was under
the impression that that was determined by the facing curve. Seems to
me it would alter with the amplitude of the reed's vibration, and I
suppose you could choke down on the facing to make it smaller. I'm
having trouble visualizing how vocal tract changes would change it.

  

Also, I thought the mouthpiece volume required by the saxophone to play
in tune was static, and you would get better harmonic alignment at this
volume than any other regardless of the note. 

  

I wonder how a piece where the proportion of mpc volume made up of reed
compliance was maximized would sound.

  

--- In MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com,
MartinMods <lancelotburt@ ...> wrote:

  

>   With a 2-1/2 reed, a 130/0 is like a bassoon reed, or at least
half of one.   The opening is so large that the reed compliance makes
up a good portion of the mouthpiece volume. Instead of being just
static volume in the throat it is dynamic volume right at the reed and
that volume is supremely malleable.  With the slightest alteration of
his embouchure and/or his vocal tract, he can alter this volume and the
linked body resonance chamber to make adjustments for optimal resonance
alignment on any note. While every good player does this to some
extent, Pete's setup is just that much more effective. So, what we hear
are harmonic regimes being formed almost instantly, with minimal

> loss of acoustical energy due to misaligned resonance peaks, and
almost no inharmonic partials, unless intentionally thrown in, and
everything under the complete control of this master musician. 

  

  
  
 



 

      

    
    
	
	 
	
	








	


	
	


      

I have been lurking for quite some time on this message board and really enjoy the discussions that occur.  Some of you have some insight that would take several years of study to begin to understand!

Now, that being said, this is not intended as a flame or anything derogatory towards anyone specific, please do not take offense...

Sometimes subjects on here are over analyzed!!  For example, so much has been conjectured while trying to analyze Pete Christlieb's sound that we are beginning to lose the beauty of it!  This is sort of like trying to chemically describe the flavor of some really good BBQ ribs!  Or using science to justify the pleasure and beauty of a great isolated beach on a remote island in the tropics!  

 

Fritz,

Maybe it all depends on how much you really like the ribs.   Some people are statisfied just enjoying them by eating them.  That's great.  There are others who like them even more than that.  They like them enough to become curious as to the ingredients and procedure of making the sauce.   They are able to duplicate and perhaps even improve upon  the sauce then.  You don't have anything against a chef in the kitchen do you?   

Why should we stop at discussions of table flatness and curvatures, when there is so much more involved in designing and understanding how mouthpieces work?   One will become frustrated if one doesn't understand concepts or terminology in any discussion.  There are these options:

1.   We only discuss approved material that everyone already knows everything about.
2.  The people that don't understand can ask for explanations or do some reading if the find the subject interesting enought.
3.  The people who don't understand or aren't interested in that thread, can start or participate in one that they do find interesing.  

I don't see why everyone can't be happy.




--- On Wed, 9/2/09, FritzWhitney <fritzwhitney@...> wrote:

From: FritzWhitney <fritzwhitney@...>
Subject: [MouthpieceWork] Re: Pete Christlieb's Sound/Set-Up Analysis
To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
Date: Wednesday, September 2, 2009, 4:56 PM






 




    
                  I have been lurking for quite some time on this message board and really enjoy the discussions that occur.  Some of you have some insight that would take several years of study to begin to understand!



Now, that being said, this is not intended as a flame or anything derogatory towards anyone specific, please do not take offense...



Sometimes subjects on here are over analyzed!!  For example, so much has been conjectured while trying to analyze Pete Christlieb's sound that we are beginning to lose the beauty of it!  This is sort of like trying to chemically describe the flavor of some really good BBQ ribs!  Or using science to justify the pleasure and beauty of a great isolated beach on a remote island in the tropics!  




 

      

    
    
	
	 
	
	








	


	
	


      

I agree that in stifling a discussion we risk missing out on learning something new.  I think I'm as guilty of this as anyone because I am frustrated that some discussions do not quickly yield some new, simple-to-understand insight.  They just seem to ramble on unfocused without conclusions.  Then the focus becomes personalities and egos instead of the original topic.  

So there are many players who use Bergs that do not sound like Pete.  He is a master of his domain.  To me the conclusion is that the player can make a (lot of) difference.  But we knew that already.  

But part of his sound is his mouthpiece of choice.  Would he sound even better on a larger chamber mouthpiece?  Maybe one with an insert constriction?  I think some would like his sound more, others less.  But if Pete liked it, he would make it work for him.  As he does his Berg.



________________________________
From: MartinMods <lancelotburt@...>
To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Wednesday, September 2, 2009 1:19:44 PM
Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: Pete Christlieb's Sound/Set-Up Analysis

  
Fritz,

Maybe it all depends on how much you really like the ribs.   Some people are statisfied just enjoying them by eating them.  That's great.  There are others who like them even more than that.  They like them enough to become curious as to the ingredients and procedure of making the sauce.   They are able to duplicate and perhaps even improve upon  the sauce then.  You don't have anything against a chef in the kitchen do you?   

Why should we stop at discussions of table flatness and curvatures, when there is so much more involved in designing and understanding how mouthpieces work?   One will become frustrated if one doesn't understand concepts or terminology in any discussion.  There are these options:

1.   We only discuss approved material that everyone already knows everything about.
2.  The people that don't understand can ask for explanations or do some reading if the find the subject interesting enought.
3.  The people who don't understand or aren't interested in that thread, can start or participate in one that they do find interesing.  

I don't see why everyone can't be happy.




--- On Wed, 9/2/09, FritzWhitney <fritzwhitney@ yahoo.com> wrote:


>From: FritzWhitney <fritzwhitney@ yahoo.com>
>Subject: [MouthpieceWork] Re: Pete Christlieb's Sound/Set-Up Analysis
>To: MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com
>Date: Wednesday, September 2, 2009, 4:56 PM
>
>
>  
>I have been lurking for quite some time on this message board and really enjoy the discussions that occur. Some of you have some insight that would take several years of study to begin to understand!
>
>Now, that being said, this is not intended as a flame or anything derogatory towards anyone specific, please do not take offense...
>
>Sometimes subjects on here are over analyzed!! For example, so much has been conjectured while trying to analyze Pete Christlieb's sound that we are beginning to lose the beauty of it! This is sort of like trying to chemically describe the flavor of some really good BBQ ribs! Or using science to justify the pleasure and beauty of a great isolated beach on a remote island in the tropics! 
>
> 




      

Yeah, the art is there to be enjoyed, but there are plenty of places to discuss that.  This is the one place we can have a very technical discussion about mouthpieces.  Over-analyzing things is maybe the best thing about this group.  


--- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, "FritzWhitney" <fritzwhitney@...> wrote:
>
> I have been lurking for quite some time on this message board and really enjoy the discussions that occur.  Some of you have some insight that would take several years of study to begin to understand!
> 
> Now, that being said, this is not intended as a flame or anything derogatory towards anyone specific, please do not take offense...
> 
> Sometimes subjects on here are over analyzed!!  For example, so much has been conjectured while trying to analyze Pete Christlieb's sound that we are beginning to lose the beauty of it!  This is sort of like trying to chemically describe the flavor of some really good BBQ ribs!  Or using science to justify the pleasure and beauty of a great isolated beach on a remote island in the tropics!
>

This html message parsed with html2text ---------------------------So - we've discussed the idea that "ideal", calculated mouthpiece volumes are
not necessary for the mouthpiece to work well (fairly wide ranges of measured
volumes seem to work). Is it overly-simplistic to summarize this current
thread with:  
  
Smaller-than-expected chamber volumes might work with large tip openings,
since the volume over which the reed travels contributes somewhat to
'effective' chamber volume.  
  
??  
  
DT  
  
frymorgan wrote:

> Yeah, the art is there to be enjoyed, but there are plenty of places to
> discuss that. This is the one place we can have a very technical discussion
> about mouthpieces. Over-analyzing things is maybe the best thing about this
> group.  
>  
>  \\--- In
> [MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com](mailto:MouthpieceWork%40yahoogroups.com),
> "FritzWhitney" ...> wrote:  
>  >  
>  > I have been lurking for quite some time on this message board and really
> enjoy the discussions that occur. Some of you have some insight that would
> take several years of study to begin to understand!  
>  >  
>  > Now, that being said, this is not intended as a flame or anything
> derogatory towards anyone specific, please do not take offense...  
>  >  
>  > Sometimes subjects on here are over analyzed!! For example, so much has
> been conjectured while trying to analyze Pete Christlieb's sound that we are
> beginning to lose the beauty of it! This is sort of like trying to
> chemically describe the flavor of some really good BBQ ribs! Or using
> science to justify the pleasure and beauty of a great isolated beach on a
> remote island in the tropics!  
>  >  
>  
>

--- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, MartinMods <lancelotburt@...> wrote:
>
Benade did extensive experiments with a soprano sax mouthpiece (of known volume - up to where the inserted tube ended) and various lengths of cylindrical tubing.  The total volume of mouthpiece + tubing was calculated, thus he was able to predict the frequency of each played tube.   The actual played pitch however, for every mode of every tube was always significantly lower than what was calculated..   He concluded that the actual functional volume of the substitution included also the reed compliance (the reed and it's entire range of motion), and to some extent, the player's vocal tract. 

Do you recall which paper this was?  

I appreciate the responses, especially that they are not a flaming!

I do understand there is a need for a forum for technical discussions and I am a huge student of many things technical.   I was raised in a house with a father who was an engineer in the space program, I can appreciate the passion that so many of the techies here display.  And I respect your knowledge and passion!

My point is to not stifle these discussions, for it is from these discussions that someone gets that kernel of an idea that germinates into something truly innovative.  I am not trying to turn this into a discussion of art, I just believe there are too many variables in tone production to begin to quantize them and then develop any sort of "universal theory of sound."

I will return to my previous state of lurking, best described with, "Better to have people think of you as an idiot than to open your mouth and remove all doubt."

Hi:

I heard Christlieb was using a plasticover 2 1/2 with about about a 140/1 or 0 Berg.  What are you saying he is using, and have any of you heard him live without a microphone?

Thanks,

BOb

--- On Wed, 9/2/09, MartinMods <lancelotburt@...> wrote:

From: MartinMods <lancelotburt@yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: Pete Christlieb's Sound/Set-Up Analysis
To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
Date: Wednesday, September 2, 2009, 12:19 PM






 




    
                  Fritz,

Maybe it all depends on how much you really like the ribs.   Some people are statisfied just enjoying them by eating them.  That's great.  There are others who like them even more than that.  They like them enough to become curious as to the ingredients and procedure of making the sauce.   They are able to duplicate and perhaps even improve upon  the sauce then.  You don't have anything against a chef in the kitchen do you?   

Why should we stop at discussions of table flatness and curvatures, when there is so much more involved in designing and understanding how mouthpieces work?   One will become frustrated if one doesn't understand concepts or terminology in any discussion.  There are these options:

1.   We only discuss approved material that everyone
 already knows everything about.
2.  The people that don't understand can ask for explanations or do some reading if the find the subject interesting enought.
3.  The people who don't understand or aren't interested in that thread, can start or participate in one that they do find interesing.  

I don't see why everyone can't be happy.




--- On Wed, 9/2/09, FritzWhitney <fritzwhitney@ yahoo.com> wrote:

From: FritzWhitney <fritzwhitney@ yahoo.com>
Subject: [MouthpieceWork] Re: Pete Christlieb's Sound/Set-Up Analysis
To: MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com
Date: Wednesday, September 2, 2009, 4:56 PM






 

    
                  I have been lurking for quite some time on this message board and really enjoy the discussions that occur.  Some of you have some insight that would take several years of study to begin to understand!



Now, that being said, this is not intended as a flame or anything derogatory towards anyone specific, please do not take offense...



Sometimes subjects on here are over analyzed!!  For example, so much has been conjectured while trying to analyze Pete Christlieb's sound that we are beginning to lose the beauty of it!  This is sort of like trying to chemically describe the flavor of some really good BBQ ribs!  Or using science to justify the pleasure and beauty of a great isolated beach on a remote island in the tropics!  




 

      


	 
	
	


      
 

      

    
    
	
	 
	
	








	


	
	


      

It's in his book, Fundamentals Of Musical Acoustics.

--- On Wed, 9/2/09, frymorgan <frymorgan@...> wrote:

From: frymorgan <frymorgan@...>
Subject: [MouthpieceWork] Re: Pete Christlieb's Sound/Set-Up Analysis
To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
Date: Wednesday, September 2, 2009, 10:10 PM






 




    
                  --- In MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com, MartinMods <lancelotburt@ ...> wrote:

>

Benade did extensive experiments with a soprano sax mouthpiece (of known volume - up to where the inserted tube ended) and various lengths of cylindrical tubing.  The total volume of mouthpiece + tubing was calculated, thus he was able to predict the frequency of each played tube.   The actual played pitch however, for every mode of every tube was always significantly lower than what was calculated..   He concluded that the actual functional volume of the substitution included also the reed compliance (the reed and it's entire range of motion), and to some extent, the player's vocal tract. 



Do you recall which paper this was?  




 

      

    
    
	
	 
	
	








	


	
	


      

"calculated mouthpiece
volumes are not necessary for the mouthpiece to work well "

Well, yes, and no.  It all depends on how picky you are.  A weekend warrior with a Yamaha tenor, will most likely be happy with any mouthpiece off the dealer's shelf, as is.  On the other hand, someone with serious "artistic" aspirations, with a great Mk6, Conn 10m, or equivalent tenor, who plays only that instrument, no doubling, and no commercial gigs, is going to have quite another set of criteria for a suitable mouthpiece.  An "artist" is always exploring the limitations of his equipment, and will notice subtle differences that the former player won't.  



"Smaller-than- expected chamber volumes might work with large tip
openings, since the volume over which the reed travels contributes
somewhat to 'effective' chamber volume."

I don't understand where "Smaller than expected chamber volume" came from.  

A good summation would be maybe: 

The reed compliance of more open mouthpieces makes up a larger portion of the chamber volume, and should be taken into account.  

Actually, the point I wanted to make with this thread, in a roundabout way, was, The distribution of the chamber volume can possibly make a significant difference in tone quality and response - using Pete C. as my example.   The reed compliance should perhaps not be overlooked.

As for over analysis:  If one is not able to apply information to one's own personal experience then one could understandably consider the information worthless.  If I say to you, "Hey!  I have something cool for you.  Listen to this!" and then drop a handfull of change on the table, you are most likely going to say something like, "That's just noise.  I don't hear anything.", but a blind person, with a highly developed sense of hearing, is going to hear pennies, nickles, dimes, and quarters, and will say, "You just gave me $1.37!  Thanks!".






--- On Wed, 9/2/09, Dan Torosian <dtorosian@...> wrote:

From: Dan Torosian <dtorosian@...>
Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: Pete Christlieb's Sound/Set-Up Analysis
To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
Date: Wednesday, September 2, 2009, 8:41 PM






 




    
                  



So - we've discussed the idea that "ideal", calculated mouthpiece
volumes are not necessary for the mouthpiece to work well (fairly wide
ranges of measured volumes seem to work).  Is it overly-simplistic to
summarize this current thread with: 



Smaller-than- expected chamber volumes might work with large tip
openings, since the volume over which the reed travels contributes
somewhat to 'effective' chamber volume.



??



DT



frymorgan wrote:
 

  
  Yeah, the art is there to be enjoyed, but there are plenty of
places to discuss that. This is the one place we can have a very
technical discussion about mouthpieces. Over-analyzing things is maybe
the best thing about this group. 

  

--- In MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com,
"FritzWhitney" <fritzwhitney@ ...> wrote:

>

> I have been lurking for quite some time on this message board and
really enjoy the discussions that occur. Some of you have some insight
that would take several years of study to begin to understand!

> 

> Now, that being said, this is not intended as a flame or anything
derogatory towards anyone specific, please do not take offense...

> 

> Sometimes subjects on here are over analyzed!! For example, so
much has been conjectured while trying to analyze Pete Christlieb's
sound that we are beginning to lose the beauty of it! This is sort of
like trying to chemically describe the flavor of some really good BBQ
ribs! Or using science to justify the pleasure and beauty of a great
isolated beach on a remote island in the tropics!

>

  

  
  
 



 

      

    
    
	
	 
	
	








	


	
	


      

Numerous online sources claim it is: 130/0 with 2-1/2 Rico Plasticover Reeds.

--- On Thu, 9/3/09, dan lunsford <bluesnote2000@...> wrote:

From: dan lunsford <bluesnote2000@...>
Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: Pete Christlieb's Sound/Set-Up Analysis
To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
Date: Thursday, September 3, 2009, 12:26 AM






 




    
                  Hi:

I heard Christlieb was using a plasticover 2 1/2 with about about a 140/1 or 0 Berg.  What are you saying he is using, and have any of you heard him live without a microphone?

Thanks,

BOb

--- On Wed, 9/2/09, MartinMods <lancelotburt@ yahoo.com> wrote:

From: MartinMods <lancelotburt@ yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: Pete Christlieb's Sound/Set-Up Analysis
To: MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com
Date: Wednesday, September 2, 2009, 12:19 PM






 

    
                  Fritz,

Maybe it all depends on how much you really like the ribs.   Some people are statisfied just enjoying them by eating them.  That's great.  There are others who like them even more than that.  They like them enough to become curious as to the ingredients and procedure of making the sauce.   They are able to duplicate and perhaps even improve upon  the sauce then.  You don't have anything against a chef in the kitchen do you?   

Why should we stop at discussions of table flatness and curvatures, when there is so much more involved in designing and understanding how mouthpieces
 work?   One will become frustrated if one doesn't understand concepts or terminology in any discussion.  There are these options:

1.   We only discuss approved material that everyone
 already knows everything about.
2.  The people that don't understand can ask for explanations or do some reading if the find the subject interesting enought.
3.  The people who don't understand or aren't interested in that thread, can start or participate in one that they do find interesing.  

I don't see why everyone can't be happy.




--- On Wed, 9/2/09, FritzWhitney <fritzwhitney@ yahoo.com> wrote:

From: FritzWhitney <fritzwhitney@ yahoo.com>
Subject: [MouthpieceWork] Re: Pete Christlieb's Sound/Set-Up Analysis
To: MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com
Date: Wednesday, September 2, 2009, 4:56 PM






 

    
                  I have been lurking for quite some time on this message board and really enjoy the discussions that occur.  Some of you have some insight that would take several years of study to begin to understand!



Now, that being said, this is not intended as a flame or anything derogatory towards anyone specific, please do not take offense...



Sometimes subjects on here are over analyzed!!  For example, so much has been conjectured while trying to analyze Pete Christlieb's sound that we are beginning to lose the beauty of it!  This is sort of like trying to chemically describe the flavor of some really good BBQ ribs!  Or using science to justify the pleasure and beauty of a great isolated beach on a remote island in the tropics!  




 

      


	 
	
	


      
 

      


	 
	
	




      
 

      

    
    
	
	 
	
	








	


	
	


      

This html message parsed with html2text ---------------------------"The reed compliance of more open mouthpieces makes up a larger portion of the
chamber volume, and should be taken into account. "  
  
Thanks - that's what I was getting at! Also, that a Berg 130/0 - large tip
opening, smallish chamber, high baffle - might be a particularly good example
of this phenomenon.  
  
DT  
  
MartinMods wrote:

> "calculated mouthpiece volumes are not necessary for the mouthpiece to work
> well "  
>  
>  Well, yes, and no. It all depends on how picky you are. A weekend warrior
> with a Yamaha tenor, will most likely be happy with any mouthpiece off the
> dealer's shelf, as is. On the other hand, someone with serious "artistic"
> aspirations, with a great Mk6, Conn 10m, or equivalent tenor, who plays only
> that instrument, no doubling, and no commercial gigs, is going to have quite
> another set of criteria for a suitable mouthpiece. An "artist" is always
> exploring the limitations of his equipment, and will notice subtle
> differences that the former player won't.  
>  
>  "Smaller-than- expected chamber volumes might work with large tip openings,
> since the volume over which the reed travels contributes somewhat to
> 'effective' chamber volume."  
>  
>  I don't understand where "Smaller than expected chamber volume" came from.  
>  
>  A good summation would be maybe:  
>  
>  The reed compliance of more open mouthpieces makes up a larger portion of
> the chamber volume, and should be taken into account.  
>  
>  Actually, the point I wanted to make with this thread, in a roundabout way,
> was, The distribution of the chamber volume can possibly make a significant
> difference in tone quality and response - using Pete C. as my example. The
> reed compliance should perhaps not be overlooked.  
>  
>  As for over analysis: If one is not able to apply information to one's own
> personal experience then one could understandably consider the information
> worthless. If I say to you, "Hey! I have something cool for you. Listen to
> this!" and then drop a handfull of change on the table, you are most likely
> going to say something like, "That's just noise. I don't hear anything.",
> but a blind person, with a highly developed sense of hearing, is going to
> hear pennies, nickles, dimes, and quarters, and will say, "You just gave me
> $1.37! Thanks!".  
>  
>  
>  
>  
>  
>  
>  \\--- On **Wed, 9/2/09, Dan Torosian _.net>_** wrote:  
>
>

>>  
>  From: Dan Torosian .net>  
>  Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: Pete Christlieb's Sound/Set-Up Analysis  
>  To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com  
>  Date: Wednesday, September 2, 2009, 8:41 PM  
>  
>  So - we've discussed the idea that "ideal", calculated mouthpiece volumes
> are not necessary for the mouthpiece to work well (fairly wide ranges of
> measured volumes seem to work). Is it overly-simplistic to summarize this
> current thread with:  
>  
>  Smaller-than- expected chamber volumes might work with large tip openings,
> since the volume over which the reed travels contributes somewhat to
> 'effective' chamber volume.  
>  
>  ??  
>  
>  DT  
>  
>  frymorgan wrote:
>>

>>> Yeah, the art is there to be enjoyed, but there are plenty of places to
discuss that. This is the one place we can have a very technical discussion
about mouthpieces. Over-analyzing things is maybe the best thing about this
group.  
>  
>  \\--- In [MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups.
> com](/mc/compose?to=MouthpieceWork%40yahoogroups.com), "FritzWhitney"
> wrote:  
>  >  
>  > I have been lurking for quite some time on this message board and really
> enjoy the discussions that occur. Some of you have some insight that would
> take several years of study to begin to understand!  
>  >  
>  > Now, that being said, this is not intended as a flame or anything
> derogatory towards anyone specific, please do not take offense...  
>  >  
>  > Sometimes subjects on here are over analyzed!! For example, so much has
> been conjectured while trying to analyze Pete Christlieb's sound that we are
> beginning to lose the beauty of it! This is sort of like trying to
> chemically describe the flavor of some really good BBQ ribs! Or using
> science to justify the pleasure and beauty of a great isolated beach on a
> remote island in the tropics!  
>  >  
>  
>  
>  
> ---  
>  
>

Quote:
"The reed compliance of more open mouthpieces makes up a larger portion of the chamber volume, and should be taken into account. "

That makes sense to me from a phenomenological point of view.  I would like to add these *very empirical* data points:

1) When I was playing full time in the 80's a lot of guys in Reno and Vegas used the Menza Delrin mouthpieces - very open!  One of them, a band mate of mine, was playing a .160 opening piece, and said that it was really more like playing a .130 or .120 because after a day or two break-in the reed took on a lot of curvature.  It was obvious to the naked eye.  

The point being, at least for this discussion, that the reed compliance volume was significantly reduced once a reed had been broken in.  I played this mouthpiece several times and it played very easily, surprisingly to me. I was playing a Link that was opened to .120 at the time, and it was actually less resistant than my Link (though I still liked the Link better).

So measuring or accounting for this reed compliance depends a lot on the mouthpiece, the reed and the player (this guy had a very firm embouchure).

2) Don himself played his own pieces for years, then in the 90's showed up in Reno for a jazz festival playing a very close Brilhart Tonalin piece.  His comment was "I just put a #5 reed on it and it plays the same".  He sounded, of course, as great as ever and I challenge anyone to distinguish his sound on that setup from one from several years previous.

This leads me to believe (as Keith so subtly commented earlier in the thread) that the player has a lot more to do with the sound than the mouthpiece.  Sure, the mouthpiece has to be comfortable to the player, but given that, and given that no matter the level of artistic and technical perfection achieved by that player (me, C-; Don or Pete, B+; Coltrane, Brecker, Garrett A+++)  (just my opinion folks, don't get all bent out of shape here <G>), the player will sound like him/her self, and be completely identifiable by anyone who knows that sound.

All that said, this is an interesting discussion and the real question is - how do we use this knowledge to help design new and better mouthpieces?

-Steve Keller 

"...he real question is - how do we use this knowledge to help design new and better mouthpieces?"

I'm leaning toward exclusivity as the way to a better mouthpiece.  The mouthpiece needs to be designed to match the specific player and instrument in mind.  

I should add this distinction however; that for many players and many instruments, a better mouthpiece does not exist, only a different mouthpiece.  Many players are content with their level of expertiese and are not interested in expanding the boundaries of the art of saxophone playing perhaps.  Many instruments by design have been scraficed acoustic potential in favor of acoustic flexibilitty, and will sound equally good on just about any mouthpiece, but not better.

Some people hate Benade quotes from the 70's, so  I'll just paraphrase.   When saxophone players become as obscessed with matching the acoustical aspects of their mouthpieces to their instruments as oboists and bassoonists are in matching thier reeds to theirs, then we will see some developments in saxophone artistry.  

I would apply this to saxophonists with real artistic aspirations, with instruments of superior acoustical potential.  To do that, saxophonists are going to have to start making their own mouthpieces, or getting mouthpieces custom made to their, physical charateristics, their artistic and stylistic requirments, and their instruemnt's acoustical properties.  The amount nature of the reed compliance would then be an interesting and important option to explore.








--- On Fri, 9/4/09, esteban_cadenza <esteban_cadenza@...> wrote:

From: esteban_cadenza <esteban_cadenza@...>
Subject: [MouthpieceWork] Re: Pete Christlieb's Sound/Set-Up Analysis
To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
Date: Friday, September 4, 2009, 1:25 AM






 




    
                  Quote:

"The reed compliance of more open mouthpieces makes up a larger portion of the chamber volume, and should be taken into account. "



That makes sense to me from a phenomenological point of view.  I would like to add these *very empirical* data points:



1) When I was playing full time in the 80's a lot of guys in Reno and Vegas used the Menza Delrin mouthpieces - very open!  One of them, a band mate of mine, was playing a .160 opening piece, and said that it was really more like playing a .130 or .120 because after a day or two break-in the reed took on a lot of curvature.  It was obvious to the naked eye.  



The point being, at least for this discussion, that the reed compliance volume was significantly reduced once a reed had been broken in.  I played this mouthpiece several times and it played very easily, surprisingly to me. I was playing a Link that was opened to .120 at the time, and it was actually less resistant than my Link (though I still liked the Link better).



So measuring or accounting for this reed compliance depends a lot on the mouthpiece, the reed and the player (this guy had a very firm embouchure).



2) Don himself played his own pieces for years, then in the 90's showed up in Reno for a jazz festival playing a very close Brilhart Tonalin piece.  His comment was "I just put a #5 reed on it and it plays the same".  He sounded, of course, as great as ever and I challenge anyone to distinguish his sound on that setup from one from several years previous.



This leads me to believe (as Keith so subtly commented earlier in the thread) that the player has a lot more to do with the sound than the mouthpiece.  Sure, the mouthpiece has to be comfortable to the player, but given that, and given that no matter the level of artistic and technical perfection achieved by that player (me, C-; Don or Pete, B+; Coltrane, Brecker, Garrett A+++)  (just my opinion folks, don't get all bent out of shape here <G>), the player will sound like him/her self, and be completely identifiable by anyone who knows that sound.



All that said, this is an interesting discussion and the real question is - how do we use this knowledge to help design new and better mouthpieces?



-Steve Keller 




 

      

    
    
	
	 
	
	








	


	
	


      

Here's Don playing on a few different mouthpieces.  He still sounds like Don, great on everything, but I hear distinct day/night differences, mike placement and recording quality aside.  

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5o_8U0oWjm4

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GgsumcJODVU

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VFO6v_ESix4




--- On Fri, 9/4/09, MartinMods <lancelotburt@...> wrote:

From: MartinMods <lancelotburt@...>
Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: Pete Christlieb's Sound/Set-Up Analysis
To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
Date: Friday, September 4, 2009, 4:55 AM






 




    
                  "...he real question is - how do we use this knowledge to help design new and better mouthpieces? "

I'm leaning toward exclusivity as the way to a better mouthpiece.  The mouthpiece needs to be designed to match the specific player and instrument in mind.  

I should add this distinction however; that for many players and many instruments, a better mouthpiece does not exist, only a different mouthpiece.  Many players are content with their level of expertiese and are not interested in expanding the boundaries of the art of saxophone playing perhaps.  Many instruments by design have been scraficed acoustic potential in favor of acoustic flexibilitty, and will sound equally good on just about any mouthpiece, but not better.

Some people hate Benade quotes from the 70's, so  I'll just paraphrase.   When
 saxophone players become as obscessed with matching the acoustical aspects of their mouthpieces to their instruments as oboists and bassoonists are in matching thier reeds to theirs, then we will see some developments in saxophone artistry.  

I would apply this to saxophonists with real artistic aspirations, with instruments of superior acoustical potential.  To do that, saxophonists are going to have to start making their own mouthpieces, or getting mouthpieces custom made to their, physical charateristics, their artistic and stylistic requirments, and their instruemnt's acoustical properties.  The amount nature of the reed compliance would then be an interesting and important option to explore.








--- On Fri, 9/4/09, esteban_cadenza <esteban_cadenza@ yahoo.com> wrote:

From:
 esteban_cadenza <esteban_cadenza@ yahoo.com>
Subject: [MouthpieceWork] Re: Pete Christlieb's Sound/Set-Up Analysis
To: MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com
Date: Friday, September 4, 2009, 1:25 AM






 

    
                  Quote:

"The reed compliance of more open mouthpieces makes up a larger portion of the chamber volume, and should be taken into account. "



That makes sense to me from a phenomenological point of view.  I would like to add these *very empirical* data points:



1) When I was playing full time in the 80's a lot of guys in Reno and Vegas used the Menza Delrin mouthpieces - very open!  One of them, a band mate of mine, was playing a .160 opening piece, and said that it was really more like playing a .130 or .120 because after a day or two break-in the reed took on a lot of curvature.  It was obvious to the naked eye.  



The point being, at least for this discussion, that the reed compliance volume was significantly reduced once a reed had been broken in.  I played this mouthpiece several times and it played very easily, surprisingly to me.. I was playing a Link that was opened to .120 at the time, and it was actually less resistant than my Link (though I still liked the Link better).



So measuring or accounting for this reed compliance depends a lot on the mouthpiece, the reed and the player (this guy had a very firm embouchure).



2) Don himself played his own pieces for years, then in the 90's showed up in Reno for a jazz festival playing a very close Brilhart Tonalin piece.  His comment was "I just put a #5 reed on it and it plays the same".  He sounded, of course, as great as ever and I challenge anyone to distinguish his sound on that setup from one from several years previous.



This leads me to believe (as Keith so subtly commented earlier in the thread) that the player has a lot more to do with the sound than the mouthpiece.  Sure, the mouthpiece has to be comfortable to the player, but given that, and given that no matter the level of artistic and technical perfection achieved by that player (me, C-; Don or Pete, B+; Coltrane, Brecker, Garrett A+++)  (just my opinion folks, don't get all bent out of shape here <G>), the player will sound like him/her self, and be completely identifiable by anyone who knows that sound.



All that said, this is an interesting discussion and the real question is - how do we use this knowledge to help design new and better mouthpieces?



-Steve Keller 




 

      


	 
	
	


      
 

      

    
    
	
	 
	
	








	


	
	


      

Mr. Christlieb's Berg is a 130/0 that actually measures .122".  Yes, Rico Plasticover 2-1/2

--- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, MartinMods <lancelotburt@...> wrote:
>
> Numerous online sources claim it is: 130/0 with 2-1/2 Rico Plasticover Reeds.
> 
> --- On Thu, 9/3/09, dan lunsford <bluesnote2000@...> wrote:
> 
> From: dan lunsford <bluesnote2000@...>
> Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: Pete Christlieb's Sound/Set-Up Analysis
> To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
> Date: Thursday, September 3, 2009, 12:26 AM
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>  
> 
> 
> 
> 
>     
>                   Hi:
> 
> I heard Christlieb was using a plasticover 2 1/2 with about about a 140/1 or 0 Berg.  What are you saying he is using, and have any of you heard him live without a microphone?
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> BOb

I must plead ignorance to what all an oboe/bassoonist is obsessed with when it comes to reed-making.  The ones I have met seem to be happy when the reed allows them to play the range of notes they need to play, in-tune, and articulate/respond the way the they need to.  At orchestra levels are they also working their reeds for dark vs bright tones?  Spread vs focused?  Control vs expressiveness?   Embouchure comfort?   Harmonic alignment?  Altissimo response?

I know very few double-reed players, but I know a lot of mouthpiece obsessive sax players.  Some are real artists too.  I guess the question is "is there another level beyond what is now done?"  Are players like Pete already doing it?
 
Mojo Mouthpiece Work LLC
2925 Crane St., Vineland, NJ 08361 
Paypal to sabradbury79@...m 
Check out: http://www.MojoMouthpieceWork.com




________________________________
From: MartinMods <lancelotburt@...>
To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Friday, September 4, 2009 12:55:03 AM
Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: Pete Christlieb's Sound/Set-Up Analysis

  
Some people hate Benade quotes from the 70's, so  I'll just paraphrase.   When saxophone players become as obscessed with matching the acoustical aspects of their mouthpieces to their instruments as oboists and bassoonists are in matching thier reeds to theirs, then we will see some developments in saxophone artistry.  

 




      

I'm not an acoustician, but I completely agree with Lance on the quite remarkable differences in Menza's tone on these 3 different mpcs. What makes them all sound like Menza is probably more the attack and approach than the tone quality. Granted, the differences are subtle, but they're there.

I just wanted to say "go Lance!" I love people who ask questions and try to get as scientific as possible on things. Sometimes the questions will lead to blind alleys, but it's never a bad thing to ask the questions. JT 



--- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, MartinMods <lancelotburt@...> wrote:
>
> Here's Don playing on a few different mouthpieces.  He still sounds like Don, great on everything, but I hear distinct day/night differences, mike placement and recording quality aside.  
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5o_8U0oWjm4
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GgsumcJODVU
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VFO6v_ESix4
> 
> 
> 
> 
> --- On Fri, 9/4/09, MartinMods <lancelotburt@...> wrote:
> 
> From: MartinMods <lancelotburt@...>
> Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: Pete Christlieb's Sound/Set-Up Analysis
> To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
> Date: Friday, September 4, 2009, 4:55 AM
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>  
> 
> 
> 
> 
>     
>                   "...he real question is - how do we use this knowledge to help design new and better mouthpieces? "
> 
> I'm leaning toward exclusivity as the way to a better mouthpiece.  The mouthpiece needs to be designed to match the specific player and instrument in mind.  
> 
> I should add this distinction however; that for many players and many instruments, a better mouthpiece does not exist, only a different mouthpiece.  Many players are content with their level of expertiese and are not interested in expanding the boundaries of the art of saxophone playing perhaps.  Many instruments by design have been scraficed acoustic potential in favor of acoustic flexibilitty, and will sound equally good on just about any mouthpiece, but not better.
> 
> Some people hate Benade quotes from the 70's, so  I'll just paraphrase.   When
>  saxophone players become as obscessed with matching the acoustical aspects of their mouthpieces to their instruments as oboists and bassoonists are in matching thier reeds to theirs, then we will see some developments in saxophone artistry.  
> 
> I would apply this to saxophonists with real artistic aspirations, with instruments of superior acoustical potential.  To do that, saxophonists are going to have to start making their own mouthpieces, or getting mouthpieces custom made to their, physical charateristics, their artistic and stylistic requirments, and their instruemnt's acoustical properties.  The amount nature of the reed compliance would then be an interesting and important option to explore.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> --- On Fri, 9/4/09, esteban_cadenza <esteban_cadenza@ yahoo.com> wrote:
> 
> From:
>  esteban_cadenza <esteban_cadenza@ yahoo.com>
> Subject: [MouthpieceWork] Re: Pete Christlieb's Sound/Set-Up Analysis
> To: MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com
> Date: Friday, September 4, 2009, 1:25 AM
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>  
> 
>     
>                   Quote:
> 
> "The reed compliance of more open mouthpieces makes up a larger portion of the chamber volume, and should be taken into account. "
> 
> 
> 
> That makes sense to me from a phenomenological point of view.  I would like to add these *very empirical* data points:
> 
> 
> 
> 1) When I was playing full time in the 80's a lot of guys in Reno and Vegas used the Menza Delrin mouthpieces - very open!  One of them, a band mate of mine, was playing a .160 opening piece, and said that it was really more like playing a .130 or .120 because after a day or two break-in the reed took on a lot of curvature.  It was obvious to the naked eye.  
> 
> 
> 
> The point being, at least for this discussion, that the reed compliance volume was significantly reduced once a reed had been broken in.  I played this mouthpiece several times and it played very easily, surprisingly to me.. I was playing a Link that was opened to .120 at the time, and it was actually less resistant than my Link (though I still liked the Link better).
> 
> 
> 
> So measuring or accounting for this reed compliance depends a lot on the mouthpiece, the reed and the player (this guy had a very firm embouchure).
> 
> 
> 
> 2) Don himself played his own pieces for years, then in the 90's showed up in Reno for a jazz festival playing a very close Brilhart Tonalin piece.  His comment was "I just put a #5 reed on it and it plays the same".  He sounded, of course, as great as ever and I challenge anyone to distinguish his sound on that setup from one from several years previous.
> 
> 
> 
> This leads me to believe (as Keith so subtly commented earlier in the thread) that the player has a lot more to do with the sound than the mouthpiece.  Sure, the mouthpiece has to be comfortable to the player, but given that, and given that no matter the level of artistic and technical perfection achieved by that player (me, C-; Don or Pete, B+; Coltrane, Brecker, Garrett A+++)  (just my opinion folks, don't get all bent out of shape here <G>), the player will sound like him/her self, and be completely identifiable by anyone who knows that sound.
> 
> 
> 
> All that said, this is an interesting discussion and the real question is - how do we use this knowledge to help design new and better mouthpieces?
> 
> 
> 
> -Steve Keller
>

As we know, the saxophone works best when the mouthpiece/reed compliance matches the missing cone in volume.  The convenience of the saxophone is, you have a hard-walled mouthpiece that defines the chamber to start with. You pick a chamber size and then you slap just about any reed on it and you are all set. 

The oboist/bassoonist must create an entire mouthpiece chamber from cane.  The physical geometric volume of a double reed and it's long staple/bocal constriction, is still much smaller than that of the missing cone.  Under playing conditions, the volume that the double reed substitution lacks is made up by the compliance of the reed - the way the reed flexes.  As such, the dimensions, shape, and taper of the reed halves must be exact.  Further, it is just as critical that the played Frs of the reed/constriction must match the theoretical frequency of the missing cone, for the instrument to play well and as in-tune as possible.  This is what an oboist is checking when he "caw"'s  the reed/staple alone.  If the reed is not at the right pitch, his intonation and his "A" will be off.

An interesting fact, which I alluded to earlier, is that Pete's father, Don Christlieb, the renowned bassoonist, did more than just about anyone in analyzing and documenting the previously dark and mysterious art of making bassoon reeds.  Maybe there is a connection there.

Another level:  Once you have a mechanical design that holds the reed and lets it seal optimally - a flat table and a good facing, side rales, tip rail, etc., the whole issue for any discerning artist type is, how does this mouthpece/reed enable my horn's resonances to respond to minute and even imperceivable changes in my vocal tract, embouchure, air pressure, articulation, and finger technique?  Even the slightest improvement will be noticed by the player - like giving an artist a new shade of color to paint with.  Whether the audience perceives anything is secondary.  They may not hear any difference in performance other than, "His playing seemed more inspired."



--- On Fri, 9/4/09, Keith Bradbury <kwbradbury@...> wrote:

From: Keith Bradbury <kwbradbury@...>
Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: Pete Christlieb's Sound/Set-Up Analysis
To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
Date: Friday, September 4, 2009, 1:48 PM






 




    
                  
I must plead ignorance to what all an oboe/bassoonist is obsessed with when it comes to reed-making.  The ones I have met seem to be happy when the reed allows them to play the range of notes they need to play, in-tune, and articulate/respond the way the they need to.  At orchestra levels are they also working their reeds for dark vs bright tones?  Spread vs focused?  Control vs expressiveness?   Embouchure comfort?   Harmonic alignment?  Altissimo response?
 
I know very few double-reed players, but I know a lot of mouthpiece obsessive sax players.  Some are real artists too.  I guess the question is "is there another level beyond what is now done?"  Are players like Pete already doing it?
 


Mojo Mouthpiece Work LLC
2925 Crane St., Vineland, NJ 08361 
Paypal to sabradbury79@ yahoo.com 
Check out: http://www.MojoMout hpieceWork. com






From: MartinMods <lancelotburt@ yahoo.com>
To: MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com
Sent: Friday, September 4, 2009 12:55:03 AM
Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: Pete Christlieb's Sound/Set-Up Analysis

  





Some people hate Benade quotes from the 70's, so  I'll just paraphrase.   When saxophone players become as obscessed with matching the acoustical aspects of their mouthpieces to their instruments as oboists and bassoonists are in matching thier reeds to theirs, then we will see some developments in saxophone artistry.  







      
 

      

    
    
	
	 
	
	








	


	
	


      

The attack and the inflections (what the player does with the dynamically alterable volumes of the body resonator and reed complieance, and air pressure) and the phrasing, make them identifiable mostly.  

Listen to Michael Brecker in the 70's playing a Link, then the Dukoff, and then the last Guardala.  It's all MB and great, but there are big differences in the finer aspects of his sound.  It's the mouthpiece design.  Same for anybody.  

--- On Fri, 9/4/09, jdtoddjazz <jdtoddjazz@...> wrote:

From: jdtoddjazz <jdtoddjazz@...>
Subject: [MouthpieceWork] Re: Pete Christlieb's Sound/Set-Up Analysis
To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
Date: Friday, September 4, 2009, 2:42 PM






 




    
                  I'm not an acoustician, but I completely agree with Lance on the quite remarkable differences in Menza's tone on these 3 different mpcs. What makes them all sound like Menza is probably more the attack and approach than the tone quality. Granted, the differences are subtle, but they're there.



I just wanted to say "go Lance!" I love people who ask questions and try to get as scientific as possible on things. Sometimes the questions will lead to blind alleys, but it's never a bad thing to ask the questions. JT 



--- In MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com, MartinMods <lancelotburt@ ...> wrote:

>

> Here's Don playing on a few different mouthpieces.  He still sounds like Don, great on everything, but I hear distinct day/night differences, mike placement and recording quality aside.  

> 

> http://www.youtube. com/watch? v=5o_8U0oWjm4

> 

> http://www.youtube. com/watch? v=GgsumcJODVU

> 

> http://www.youtube. com/watch? v=VFO6v_ESix4

> 

> 

> 

> 

> --- On Fri, 9/4/09, MartinMods <lancelotburt@ ...> wrote:

> 

> From: MartinMods <lancelotburt@ ...>

> Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: Pete Christlieb's Sound/Set-Up Analysis

> To: MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com

> Date: Friday, September 4, 2009, 4:55 AM

> 

> 

> 

> 

> 

> 

>  

> 

> 

> 

> 

>     

>                   "...he real question is - how do we use this knowledge to help design new and better mouthpieces? "

> 

> I'm leaning toward exclusivity as the way to a better mouthpiece.  The mouthpiece needs to be designed to match the specific player and instrument in mind.  

> 

> I should add this distinction however; that for many players and many instruments, a better mouthpiece does not exist, only a different mouthpiece.  Many players are content with their level of expertiese and are not interested in expanding the boundaries of the art of saxophone playing perhaps.  Many instruments by design have been scraficed acoustic potential in favor of acoustic flexibilitty, and will sound equally good on just about any mouthpiece, but not better.

> 

> Some people hate Benade quotes from the 70's, so  I'll just paraphrase.   When

>  saxophone players become as obscessed with matching the acoustical aspects of their mouthpieces to their instruments as oboists and bassoonists are in matching thier reeds to theirs, then we will see some developments in saxophone artistry.  

> 

> I would apply this to saxophonists with real artistic aspirations, with instruments of superior acoustical potential.  To do that, saxophonists are going to have to start making their own mouthpieces, or getting mouthpieces custom made to their, physical charateristics, their artistic and stylistic requirments, and their instruemnt's acoustical properties.  The amount nature of the reed compliance would then be an interesting and important option to explore.

> 

> 

> 

> 

> 

> 

> 

> 

> --- On Fri, 9/4/09, esteban_cadenza <esteban_cadenza@ yahoo.com> wrote:

> 

> From:

>  esteban_cadenza <esteban_cadenza@ yahoo.com>

> Subject: [MouthpieceWork] Re: Pete Christlieb's Sound/Set-Up Analysis

> To: MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com

> Date: Friday, September 4, 2009, 1:25 AM

> 

> 

> 

> 

> 

> 

>  

> 

>     

>                   Quote:

> 

> "The reed compliance of more open mouthpieces makes up a larger portion of the chamber volume, and should be taken into account. "

> 

> 

> 

> That makes sense to me from a phenomenological point of view.  I would like to add these *very empirical* data points:

> 

> 

> 

> 1) When I was playing full time in the 80's a lot of guys in Reno and Vegas used the Menza Delrin mouthpieces - very open!  One of them, a band mate of mine, was playing a .160 opening piece, and said that it was really more like playing a .130 or .120 because after a day or two break-in the reed took on a lot of curvature.  It was obvious to the naked eye.  

> 

> 

> 

> The point being, at least for this discussion, that the reed compliance volume was significantly reduced once a reed had been broken in.  I played this mouthpiece several times and it played very easily, surprisingly to me.. I was playing a Link that was opened to .120 at the time, and it was actually less resistant than my Link (though I still liked the Link better).

> 

> 

> 

> So measuring or accounting for this reed compliance depends a lot on the mouthpiece, the reed and the player (this guy had a very firm embouchure).

> 

> 

> 

> 2) Don himself played his own pieces for years, then in the 90's showed up in Reno for a jazz festival playing a very close Brilhart Tonalin piece.  His comment was "I just put a #5 reed on it and it plays the same".  He sounded, of course, as great as ever and I challenge anyone to distinguish his sound on that setup from one from several years previous.

> 

> 

> 

> This leads me to believe (as Keith so subtly commented earlier in the thread) that the player has a lot more to do with the sound than the mouthpiece.  Sure, the mouthpiece has to be comfortable to the player, but given that, and given that no matter the level of artistic and technical perfection achieved by that player (me, C-; Don or Pete, B+; Coltrane, Brecker, Garrett A+++)  (just my opinion folks, don't get all bent out of shape here <G>), the player will sound like him/her self, and be completely identifiable by anyone who knows that sound.

> 

> 

> 

> All that said, this is an interesting discussion and the real question is - how do we use this knowledge to help design new and better mouthpieces?

> 

> 

> 

> -Steve Keller

>




 

      

    
    
	
	 
	
	








	


	
	


      

Orchestral  oboe players work on all the things you mention. I feel their obsession is a natural biproduct of oboe reed making which is more complex than sax reed making. I'm sure we could get used to making a reed and mouthpiece from scratch and keeping a dozen of these going while you start making replacements for the near future. You certainly would have a lot more members to this discussion group.     Sax players have an easier task than oboists so they aren't as obsessive.  That's a good thing!  --- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, Keith Bradbury <kwbradbury@...> wrote:
>
> I must plead ignorance to what all an oboe/bassoonist is obsessed with when it comes to reed-making.  The ones I have met seem to be happy when the reed allows them to play the range of notes they need to play, in-tune, and articulate/respond the way the they need to.  At orchestra levels are they also working their reeds for dark vs bright tones?  Spread vs focused?  Control vs expressiveness?   Embouchure comfort?   Harmonic alignment?  Altissimo response?
> 
> I know very few double-reed players, but I know a lot of mouthpiece obsessive sax players.  Some are real artists too.  I guess the question is "is there another level beyond what is now done?"  Are players like Pete already doing it?
>  
> Mojo Mouthpiece Work LLC
> 2925 Crane St., Vineland, NJ 08361 
> Paypal to sabradbury79@... 
> Check out: http://www.MojoMouthpieceWork.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ________________________________
> From: MartinMods <lancelotburt@...>
> To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Friday, September 4, 2009 12:55:03 AM
> Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: Pete Christlieb's Sound/Set-Up Analysis
> 
>   
> Some people hate Benade quotes from the 70's, so  I'll just paraphrase.   When saxophone players become as obscessed with matching the acoustical aspects of their mouthpieces to their instruments as oboists and bassoonists are in matching thier reeds to theirs, then we will see some developments in saxophone artistry.  
>