I have been following with interest the long discussions on acoustical theory regarding mouthpieces, the "missing cone", "Frs" and other exotic critters.  I offer the following observations:

1) The participants all SEEM to have an axe to grind.  I make that conclusion from the often aggressive, inflammatory and personal remarks contained in many posts.

2) The discussions seem to veer off into arguments over minutiae. I think this is a side effect of the previous observation, as the participants joust for points.

3) Very little posting happens about "mouthpiece work", such as "varying the angle of the baffle at the tip rail affects the harmonic spectrum of the test mouthpiece by increasing or decreasing the 4th through 7th harmonics".  (Completely made up statement, btw, but in my limited experience likely to have some truth in it.)

Speaking as an ex-professional saxophonist, now IT professional who still knows what to do with a tenor, and an amateur mouthpiece refacer, I wish that everyone in this discussion would:

1) Get over yourselves.  

2) Do some analysis and experimentation that will actually a) help the rest of us in our mouthpiece work; or, b) help the rest of us make some money by being better refacers or manufacturers; or c) both of the above.

Keith B., I applaud your patience in allowing this discussion to continue. I assume you do so because you hope, as do I, that there will be some nugget of information that might guide us in our quest for better mouthpiece design.  So far, the participants can't even define their terms the same way.  

For example, I still don't know what Frs is, with regard to saxophones, and I've read FMA and skimmed some of the papers mentioned in this discussion. It's pretty clear that it means the "natural frequency of the reed on the staple" of an oboe reed plus staple played by itself, but since it's possible to vary that pitch with a good, clear tone by at least a musical 5th or so (I used to play a little oboe - we called it playing the "show-bo"...), I don't know what use it is, or if it can tell me if the reed I'm working on will work well on my oboe, or what.  Ditto for the sax mouthpiece, except that most folks can play an octave on the mouthpiece by itself.  

Maybe if Lance, John and Toby can tell us what they are trying to accomplish by their studies I would understand.  (I think I know what Steve G. wants to accomplish - no offense intended, BTW, I am a great admirer of Mr. Goodson.) And I DO appreciate the concept of knowledge for its own sake, but if we could just get an idea of why these guys are fighting over the resonant frequency of an alto neck and how they expect that to improve the world of saxophone, it would be nice.

In other words, what's the point?  I'm not being sarcastic, I really want to know.  I sincerely hope that the point is not, as has been implied by some, merely self-aggrandizement.

I'll shut up now.

-Steve Keller

Well put.....

 

From: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com [mailto:MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com]
On Behalf Of Steve Keller
Sent: Thursday, March 18, 2010 4:40 PM
To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [MouthpieceWork] Theory and Practice and Money

 

  

I have been following with interest the long discussions on acoustical
theory regarding mouthpieces, the "missing cone", "Frs" and other exotic
critters. I offer the following observations:

1) The participants all SEEM to have an axe to grind. I make that conclusion
from the often aggressive, inflammatory and personal remarks contained in
many posts.

2) The discussions seem to veer off into arguments over minutiae. I think
this is a side effect of the previous observation, as the participants joust
for points.

3) Very little posting happens about "mouthpiece work", such as "varying the
angle of the baffle at the tip rail affects the harmonic spectrum of the
test mouthpiece by increasing or decreasing the 4th through 7th harmonics".
(Completely made up statement, btw, but in my limited experience likely to
have some truth in it.)

Speaking as an ex-professional saxophonist, now IT professional who still
knows what to do with a tenor, and an amateur mouthpiece refacer, I wish
that everyone in this discussion would:

1) Get over yourselves. 

2) Do some analysis and experimentation that will actually a) help the rest
of us in our mouthpiece work; or, b) help the rest of us make some money by
being better refacers or manufacturers; or c) both of the above.

Keith B., I applaud your patience in allowing this discussion to continue. I
assume you do so because you hope, as do I, that there will be some nugget
of information that might guide us in our quest for better mouthpiece
design. So far, the participants can't even define their terms the same way.


For example, I still don't know what Frs is, with regard to saxophones, and
I've read FMA and skimmed some of the papers mentioned in this discussion.
It's pretty clear that it means the "natural frequency of the reed on the
staple" of an oboe reed plus staple played by itself, but since it's
possible to vary that pitch with a good, clear tone by at least a musical
5th or so (I used to play a little oboe - we called it playing the
"show-bo"...), I don't know what use it is, or if it can tell me if the reed
I'm working on will work well on my oboe, or what. Ditto for the sax
mouthpiece, except that most folks can play an octave on the mouthpiece by
itself. 

Maybe if Lance, John and Toby can tell us what they are trying to accomplish
by their studies I would understand. (I think I know what Steve G. wants to
accomplish - no offense intended, BTW, I am a great admirer of Mr. Goodson.)
And I DO appreciate the concept of knowledge for its own sake, but if we
could just get an idea of why these guys are fighting over the resonant
frequency of an alto neck and how they expect that to improve the world of
saxophone, it would be nice.

In other words, what's the point? I'm not being sarcastic, I really want to
know. I sincerely hope that the point is not, as has been implied by some,
merely self-aggrandizement.

I'll shut up now.

-Steve Keller

It is probably time that some other members speak up about the bickering, pettiness and acrimony that has been associated with these acoustical theory and missing cone discussions. They seem to deteriorate in a personal matter rather than an academic one. They lack any conclusive useful advice that is the purpose of the site.

The "missing cone" has been kicked around for about 7 plus years now. The only practical applications or use for pro refacers from the discussion came long ago recommending the use of a taped window with water transferred to a beaker to measure chamber volume or using a telescoping bore measuring device. I also like the quick and easy use of the literal digital measuring of my little and ring fingers.

It has long been just another serving of pie in the sky at the intellectual dinner table instead of the meat and potatoes of mouthpiece work. 

 



--- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, "Steve Keller" <esteban_cadenza@...> wrote:
>
> I have been following with interest the long discussions on acoustical theory regarding mouthpieces, the "missing cone", "Frs" and other exotic critters.  I offer the following observations:
> 
> 1) The participants all SEEM to have an axe to grind.  I make that conclusion from the often aggressive, inflammatory and personal remarks contained in many posts.
> 
> 2) The discussions seem to veer off into arguments over minutiae. I think this is a side effect of the previous observation, as the participants joust for points.
> 
> 3) Very little posting happens about "mouthpiece work", such as "varying the angle of the baffle at the tip rail affects the harmonic spectrum of the test mouthpiece by increasing or decreasing the 4th through 7th harmonics".  (Completely made up statement, btw, but in my limited experience likely to have some truth in it.)
> 
> Speaking as an ex-professional saxophonist, now IT professional who still knows what to do with a tenor, and an amateur mouthpiece refacer, I wish that everyone in this discussion would:
> 
> 1) Get over yourselves.  
> 
> 2) Do some analysis and experimentation that will actually a) help the rest of us in our mouthpiece work; or, b) help the rest of us make some money by being better refacers or manufacturers; or c) both of the above.
> 
> Keith B., I applaud your patience in allowing this discussion to continue. I assume you do so because you hope, as do I, that there will be some nugget of information that might guide us in our quest for better mouthpiece design.  So far, the participants can't even define their terms the same way.  
> 
> For example, I still don't know what Frs is, with regard to saxophones, and I've read FMA and skimmed some of the papers mentioned in this discussion. It's pretty clear that it means the "natural frequency of the reed on the staple" of an oboe reed plus staple played by itself, but since it's possible to vary that pitch with a good, clear tone by at least a musical 5th or so (I used to play a little oboe - we called it playing the "show-bo"...), I don't know what use it is, or if it can tell me if the reed I'm working on will work well on my oboe, or what.  Ditto for the sax mouthpiece, except that most folks can play an octave on the mouthpiece by itself.  
> 
> Maybe if Lance, John and Toby can tell us what they are trying to accomplish by their studies I would understand.  (I think I know what Steve G. wants to accomplish - no offense intended, BTW, I am a great admirer of Mr. Goodson.) And I DO appreciate the concept of knowledge for its own sake, but if we could just get an idea of why these guys are fighting over the resonant frequency of an alto neck and how they expect that to improve the world of saxophone, it would be nice.
> 
> In other words, what's the point?  I'm not being sarcastic, I really want to know.  I sincerely hope that the point is not, as has been implied by some, merely self-aggrandizement.
> 
> I'll shut up now.
> 
> -Steve Keller
>

Again, I offer the use of my Saxophone Acoustics group on Yahoo
Groups....you are welcome to discuss the esoteric nuances of anything
saxophone acoustics related there...

 

From: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com [mailto:MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com]
On Behalf Of gregwier
Sent: Thursday, March 18, 2010 5:13 PM
To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [MouthpieceWork] Re: Theory and Practice and Money

 

  

It is probably time that some other members speak up about the bickering,
pettiness and acrimony that has been associated with these acoustical theory
and missing cone discussions. They seem to deteriorate in a personal matter
rather than an academic one. They lack any conclusive useful advice that is
the purpose of the site.

The "missing cone" has been kicked around for about 7 plus years now. The
only practical applications or use for pro refacers from the discussion came
long ago recommending the use of a taped window with water transferred to a
beaker to measure chamber volume or using a telescoping bore measuring
device. I also like the quick and easy use of the literal digital measuring
of my little and ring fingers.

It has long been just another serving of pie in the sky at the intellectual
dinner table instead of the meat and potatoes of mouthpiece work. 

--- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
<mailto:MouthpieceWork%40yahoogroups.com> , "Steve Keller"
<esteban_cadenza@...> wrote:
>
> I have been following with interest the long discussions on acoustical
theory regarding mouthpieces, the "missing cone", "Frs" and other exotic
critters. I offer the following observations:
> 
> 1) The participants all SEEM to have an axe to grind. I make that
conclusion from the often aggressive, inflammatory and personal remarks
contained in many posts.
> 
> 2) The discussions seem to veer off into arguments over minutiae. I think
this is a side effect of the previous observation, as the participants joust
for points.
> 
> 3) Very little posting happens about "mouthpiece work", such as "varying
the angle of the baffle at the tip rail affects the harmonic spectrum of the
test mouthpiece by increasing or decreasing the 4th through 7th harmonics".
(Completely made up statement, btw, but in my limited experience likely to
have some truth in it.)
> 
> Speaking as an ex-professional saxophonist, now IT professional who still
knows what to do with a tenor, and an amateur mouthpiece refacer, I wish
that everyone in this discussion would:
> 
> 1) Get over yourselves. 
> 
> 2) Do some analysis and experimentation that will actually a) help the
rest of us in our mouthpiece work; or, b) help the rest of us make some
money by being better refacers or manufacturers; or c) both of the above.
> 
> Keith B., I applaud your patience in allowing this discussion to continue.
I assume you do so because you hope, as do I, that there will be some nugget
of information that might guide us in our quest for better mouthpiece
design. So far, the participants can't even define their terms the same way.

> 
> For example, I still don't know what Frs is, with regard to saxophones,
and I've read FMA and skimmed some of the papers mentioned in this
discussion. It's pretty clear that it means the "natural frequency of the
reed on the staple" of an oboe reed plus staple played by itself, but since
it's possible to vary that pitch with a good, clear tone by at least a
musical 5th or so (I used to play a little oboe - we called it playing the
"show-bo"...), I don't know what use it is, or if it can tell me if the reed
I'm working on will work well on my oboe, or what. Ditto for the sax
mouthpiece, except that most folks can play an octave on the mouthpiece by
itself. 
> 
> Maybe if Lance, John and Toby can tell us what they are trying to
accomplish by their studies I would understand. (I think I know what Steve
G. wants to accomplish - no offense intended, BTW, I am a great admirer of
Mr. Goodson.) And I DO appreciate the concept of knowledge for its own sake,
but if we could just get an idea of why these guys are fighting over the
resonant frequency of an alto neck and how they expect that to improve the
world of saxophone, it would be nice.
> 
> In other words, what's the point? I'm not being sarcastic, I really want
to know. I sincerely hope that the point is not, as has been implied by
some, merely self-aggrandizement.
> 
> I'll shut up now.
> 
> -Steve Keller
>

--- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, "Steve Keller" <esteban_cadenza@...> wrote:
>
> 
> Keith B., I applaud your patience in allowing this discussion to continue. I assume you do so because you hope, as do I, that there will be some nugget of information that might guide us in our quest for better mouthpiece design.  So far, the participants can't even define their terms the same way.  
> 

Thank you.  This has been my hope.  If there is no discussion, we can learn anything.  We censor the flow of information.  However, as you have illustrated, there is a lot of "flow" with little information we can use.  If something comes along that is useful, I think most of us might not notice since we have gotten used to filtering out the bickering.  I think you guys can do a much better job of discussing accoustic topics in a professional manner. 

So would I be welcome on that forum Steve?

--- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, "STEVE GOODSON" <saxgourmet@...> wrote:
>
> Again, I offer the use of my Saxophone Acoustics group on Yahoo
> Groups....you are welcome to discuss the esoteric nuances of anything
> saxophone acoustics related there...
> 
>  
> 
> From: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com [mailto:MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com]
> On Behalf Of gregwier
> Sent: Thursday, March 18, 2010 5:13 PM
> To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [MouthpieceWork] Re: Theory and Practice and Money
> 
>  
> 
>   
> 
> It is probably time that some other members speak up about the bickering,
> pettiness and acrimony that has been associated with these acoustical theory
> and missing cone discussions. They seem to deteriorate in a personal matter
> rather than an academic one. They lack any conclusive useful advice that is
> the purpose of the site.
> 
> The "missing cone" has been kicked around for about 7 plus years now. The
> only practical applications or use for pro refacers from the discussion came
> long ago recommending the use of a taped window with water transferred to a
> beaker to measure chamber volume or using a telescoping bore measuring
> device. I also like the quick and easy use of the literal digital measuring
> of my little and ring fingers.
> 
> It has long been just another serving of pie in the sky at the intellectual
> dinner table instead of the meat and potatoes of mouthpiece work. 
> 
> --- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
> <mailto:MouthpieceWork%40yahoogroups.com> , "Steve Keller"
> <esteban_cadenza@> wrote:
> >
> > I have been following with interest the long discussions on acoustical
> theory regarding mouthpieces, the "missing cone", "Frs" and other exotic
> critters. I offer the following observations:
> > 
> > 1) The participants all SEEM to have an axe to grind. I make that
> conclusion from the often aggressive, inflammatory and personal remarks
> contained in many posts.
> > 
> > 2) The discussions seem to veer off into arguments over minutiae. I think
> this is a side effect of the previous observation, as the participants joust
> for points.
> > 
> > 3) Very little posting happens about "mouthpiece work", such as "varying
> the angle of the baffle at the tip rail affects the harmonic spectrum of the
> test mouthpiece by increasing or decreasing the 4th through 7th harmonics".
> (Completely made up statement, btw, but in my limited experience likely to
> have some truth in it.)
> > 
> > Speaking as an ex-professional saxophonist, now IT professional who still
> knows what to do with a tenor, and an amateur mouthpiece refacer, I wish
> that everyone in this discussion would:
> > 
> > 1) Get over yourselves. 
> > 
> > 2) Do some analysis and experimentation that will actually a) help the
> rest of us in our mouthpiece work; or, b) help the rest of us make some
> money by being better refacers or manufacturers; or c) both of the above.
> > 
> > Keith B., I applaud your patience in allowing this discussion to continue.
> I assume you do so because you hope, as do I, that there will be some nugget
> of information that might guide us in our quest for better mouthpiece
> design. So far, the participants can't even define their terms the same way.
> 
> > 
> > For example, I still don't know what Frs is, with regard to saxophones,
> and I've read FMA and skimmed some of the papers mentioned in this
> discussion. It's pretty clear that it means the "natural frequency of the
> reed on the staple" of an oboe reed plus staple played by itself, but since
> it's possible to vary that pitch with a good, clear tone by at least a
> musical 5th or so (I used to play a little oboe - we called it playing the
> "show-bo"...), I don't know what use it is, or if it can tell me if the reed
> I'm working on will work well on my oboe, or what. Ditto for the sax
> mouthpiece, except that most folks can play an octave on the mouthpiece by
> itself. 
> > 
> > Maybe if Lance, John and Toby can tell us what they are trying to
> accomplish by their studies I would understand. (I think I know what Steve
> G. wants to accomplish - no offense intended, BTW, I am a great admirer of
> Mr. Goodson.) And I DO appreciate the concept of knowledge for its own sake,
> but if we could just get an idea of why these guys are fighting over the
> resonant frequency of an alto neck and how they expect that to improve the
> world of saxophone, it would be nice.
> > 
> > In other words, what's the point? I'm not being sarcastic, I really want
> to know. I sincerely hope that the point is not, as has been implied by
> some, merely self-aggrandizement.
> > 
> > I'll shut up now.
> > 
> > -Steve Keller
> >
>

Of course you would


Sent on the Sprint® Now Network from my BlackBerry®

-----Original Message-----
From: "John" 
Date: Fri, 19 Mar 2010 00:20:21 
To: 
Subject: [MouthpieceWork] Re: Theory and Practice and Money

So would I be welcome on that forum Steve?

--- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, "STEVE GOODSON"  wrote:
>
> Again, I offer the use of my Saxophone Acoustics group on Yahoo
> Groups....you are welcome to discuss the esoteric nuances of anything
> saxophone acoustics related there...
> 
>  
> 
> From: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com [mailto:MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com]
> On Behalf Of gregwier
> Sent: Thursday, March 18, 2010 5:13 PM
> To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [MouthpieceWork] Re: Theory and Practice and Money
> 
>  
> 
>   
> 
> It is probably time that some other members speak up about the bickering,
> pettiness and acrimony that has been associated with these acoustical theory
> and missing cone discussions. They seem to deteriorate in a personal matter
> rather than an academic one. They lack any conclusive useful advice that is
> the purpose of the site.
> 
> The "missing cone" has been kicked around for about 7 plus years now. The
> only practical applications or use for pro refacers from the discussion came
> long ago recommending the use of a taped window with water transferred to a
> beaker to measure chamber volume or using a telescoping bore measuring
> device. I also like the quick and easy use of the literal digital measuring
> of my little and ring fingers.
> 
> It has long been just another serving of pie in the sky at the intellectual
> dinner table instead of the meat and potatoes of mouthpiece work. 
> 
> --- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
>  , "Steve Keller"
>  wrote:
> >
> > I have been following with interest the long discussions on acoustical
> theory regarding mouthpieces, the "missing cone", "Frs" and other exotic
> critters. I offer the following observations:
> > 
> > 1) The participants all SEEM to have an axe to grind. I make that
> conclusion from the often aggressive, inflammatory and personal remarks
> contained in many posts.
> > 
> > 2) The discussions seem to veer off into arguments over minutiae. I think
> this is a side effect of the previous observation, as the participants joust
> for points.
> > 
> > 3) Very little posting happens about "mouthpiece work", such as "varying
> the angle of the baffle at the tip rail affects the harmonic spectrum of the
> test mouthpiece by increasing or decreasing the 4th through 7th harmonics".
> (Completely made up statement, btw, but in my limited experience likely to
> have some truth in it.)
> > 
> > Speaking as an ex-professional saxophonist, now IT professional who still
> knows what to do with a tenor, and an amateur mouthpiece refacer, I wish
> that everyone in this discussion would:
> > 
> > 1) Get over yourselves. 
> > 
> > 2) Do some analysis and experimentation that will actually a) help the
> rest of us in our mouthpiece work; or, b) help the rest of us make some
> money by being better refacers or manufacturers; or c) both of the above.
> > 
> > Keith B., I applaud your patience in allowing this discussion to continue.
> I assume you do so because you hope, as do I, that there will be some nugget
> of information that might guide us in our quest for better mouthpiece
> design. So far, the participants can't even define their terms the same way.
> 
> > 
> > For example, I still don't know what Frs is, with regard to saxophones,
> and I've read FMA and skimmed some of the papers mentioned in this
> discussion. It's pretty clear that it means the "natural frequency of the
> reed on the staple" of an oboe reed plus staple played by itself, but since
> it's possible to vary that pitch with a good, clear tone by at least a
> musical 5th or so (I used to play a little oboe - we called it playing the
> "show-bo"...), I don't know what use it is, or if it can tell me if the reed
> I'm working on will work well on my oboe, or what. Ditto for the sax
> mouthpiece, except that most folks can play an octave on the mouthpiece by
> itself. 
> > 
> > Maybe if Lance, John and Toby can tell us what they are trying to
> accomplish by their studies I would understand. (I think I know what Steve
> G. wants to accomplish - no offense intended, BTW, I am a great admirer of
> Mr. Goodson.) And I DO appreciate the concept of knowledge for its own sake,
> but if we could just get an idea of why these guys are fighting over the
> resonant frequency of an alto neck and how they expect that to improve the
> world of saxophone, it would be nice.
> > 
> > In other words, what's the point? I'm not being sarcastic, I really want
> to know. I sincerely hope that the point is not, as has been implied by
> some, merely self-aggrandizement.
> > 
> > I'll shut up now.
> > 
> > -Steve Keller
> >
>

On Tue Jan 19, 2010 1:25 am  in message 8199  STEVE GOODSON wrote:

Anyone who is interested in discussing saxophone acoustics is welcome on
my group.
I will not allow trolls, anyone with a record of posting false
information about me, stalking me,  or anyone who has sent obscenity
filled emails to my wife. I think that is more than reasonable. It's
my house, and I will determine who comes through the front door.

Of course we both know you were referring to me.  Were you not telling
the truth then, or are you not telling the truth now?

--- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, saxgourmet@... wrote:
>
> Of course you would
>
>
> Sent on the Sprint® Now Network from my BlackBerry®
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: "John" jtalcott47@...
> Date: Fri, 19 Mar 2010 00:20:21
> To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [MouthpieceWork] Re: Theory and Practice and Money
>
> So would I be welcome on that forum Steve?
>
> --- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, "STEVE GOODSON" saxgourmet@
wrote:
> >
> > Again, I offer the use of my Saxophone Acoustics group on Yahoo
> > Groups....you are welcome to discuss the esoteric nuances of
anything
> > saxophone acoustics related there...
> >
> >
> >
> > From: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
[mailto:MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com]
> > On Behalf Of gregwier
> > Sent: Thursday, March 18, 2010 5:13 PM
> > To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
> > Subject: [MouthpieceWork] Re: Theory and Practice and Money
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > It is probably time that some other members speak up about the
bickering,
> > pettiness and acrimony that has been associated with these
acoustical theory
> > and missing cone discussions. They seem to deteriorate in a personal
matter
> > rather than an academic one. They lack any conclusive useful advice
that is
> > the purpose of the site.
> >
> > The "missing cone" has been kicked around for about 7 plus years
now. The
> > only practical applications or use for pro refacers from the
discussion came
> > long ago recommending the use of a taped window with water
transferred to a
> > beaker to measure chamber volume or using a telescoping bore
measuring
> > device. I also like the quick and easy use of the literal digital
measuring
> > of my little and ring fingers.
> >
> > It has long been just another serving of pie in the sky at the
intellectual
> > dinner table instead of the meat and potatoes of mouthpiece work.
> >
> > --- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
> > <mailto:MouthpieceWork%40yahoogroups.com> , "Steve Keller"
> > <esteban_cadenza@> wrote:
> > >
> > > I have been following with interest the long discussions on
acoustical
> > theory regarding mouthpieces, the "missing cone", "Frs" and other
exotic
> > critters. I offer the following observations:
> > >
> > > 1) The participants all SEEM to have an axe to grind. I make that
> > conclusion from the often aggressive, inflammatory and personal
remarks
> > contained in many posts.
> > >
> > > 2) The discussions seem to veer off into arguments over minutiae.
I think
> > this is a side effect of the previous observation, as the
participants joust
> > for points.
> > >
> > > 3) Very little posting happens about "mouthpiece work", such as
"varying
> > the angle of the baffle at the tip rail affects the harmonic
spectrum of the
> > test mouthpiece by increasing or decreasing the 4th through 7th
harmonics".
> > (Completely made up statement, btw, but in my limited experience
likely to
> > have some truth in it.)
> > >
> > > Speaking as an ex-professional saxophonist, now IT professional
who still
> > knows what to do with a tenor, and an amateur mouthpiece refacer, I
wish
> > that everyone in this discussion would:
> > >
> > > 1) Get over yourselves.
> > >
> > > 2) Do some analysis and experimentation that will actually a) help
the
> > rest of us in our mouthpiece work; or, b) help the rest of us make
some
> > money by being better refacers or manufacturers; or c) both of the
above.
> > >
> > > Keith B., I applaud your patience in allowing this discussion to
continue.
> > I assume you do so because you hope, as do I, that there will be
some nugget
> > of information that might guide us in our quest for better
mouthpiece
> > design. So far, the participants can't even define their terms the
same way.
> >
> > >
> > > For example, I still don't know what Frs is, with regard to
saxophones,
> > and I've read FMA and skimmed some of the papers mentioned in this
> > discussion. It's pretty clear that it means the "natural frequency
of the
> > reed on the staple" of an oboe reed plus staple played by itself,
but since
> > it's possible to vary that pitch with a good, clear tone by at least
a
> > musical 5th or so (I used to play a little oboe - we called it
playing the
> > "show-bo"...), I don't know what use it is, or if it can tell me if
the reed
> > I'm working on will work well on my oboe, or what. Ditto for the sax
> > mouthpiece, except that most folks can play an octave on the
mouthpiece by
> > itself.
> > >
> > > Maybe if Lance, John and Toby can tell us what they are trying to
> > accomplish by their studies I would understand. (I think I know what
Steve
> > G. wants to accomplish - no offense intended, BTW, I am a great
admirer of
> > Mr. Goodson.) And I DO appreciate the concept of knowledge for its
own sake,
> > but if we could just get an idea of why these guys are fighting over
the
> > resonant frequency of an alto neck and how they expect that to
improve the
> > world of saxophone, it would be nice.
> > >
> > > In other words, what's the point? I'm not being sarcastic, I
really want
> > to know. I sincerely hope that the point is not, as has been implied
by
> > some, merely self-aggrandizement.
> > >
> > > I'll shut up now.
> > >
> > > -Steve Keller
> > >
> >
>

Thank you Steve for your candor.  I will be happy to address what the
point is from my perspective, but first a comment about your use of the
term self-aggrandizement.

Self-aggrandizement is defined as:  The act or practice of enhancing or
exaggerating one's own importance, power, or reputation.   Synonyms of
self-aggrandizing  include:   crowing, boasting, bragging,
self-promotion, self-importance, self-glorification, self-flattery, on
an ego trip.

I'm sure that one could find a better example of this than Lance, Toby,
or myself on this forum.  With all due respect I really think you chose
the wrong term. Calling what we sometimes do an anal retentive, ego
driven, pseudo scientific, neener neener I know more than you, pissing
contest would be a far more accurate description.  The fact is that we
are all learning a tremendous amount of information about how this all
works, and trust me there will come a time when it comes together and
there will be some conclusions that we can all benefit from---kind of
like making sausage.

Here's the point.

Most of the literature on woodwind acoustics discusses a "missing cone"
at the end of a saxophone.

From Benade we know that two requirements must be met for the saxophone
to work properly.

1.  The "effective" volume of the mouthpiece must closely match the
volume of the missing cone.

2.  The frequency (pitch) played by the mouthpiece + neck (Frs) must be
the same as the calculated frequency
       of the missing cone + neck.

Here's the challenge.

- Except for Ferron's Saxophone is My Voice there is no mention in the
literature of how to actually find the volume of the missing cone or
it's length.

-There is nowhere in the literature that includes studies of matching
mouthpiece "effective" volume to that of a missing cone.

-There is nowhere in the literature that includes measurements of the
Frs of various saxophone necks with various mouthpieces.

-There is only a brief mention in Benade's text of how to determine the
"effective" volume of a mouthpiece, which very basically means the
volume added by the vibration of the reed and the player's mouth to the
geometric volume inside the mouthpiece.

Here is whyI believe this information is important

-It is common knowledge that some modern mouthpieces with a long narrow
shank play out of tune on older instruments.  Measuring and testing
Benade's requirements with different mouthpieces on the necks of these
instruments can offer solutions, or better still provide a scientific
description for why a solution found by trial and error works.

-Knowing that the chamber and shank each have a very different role in
the interior geometry of a mouthpiece,  having a clear understanding of
the overall volume required by that particular mouthpiece can help the
mouthpiece maker/refacer to balance those volumes without changing the
intonation characteristics of the mouthpiece.

-Some problems players experience with mouthpieces are "pilot error" and
not a fault of the equipment.  A clear understanding of mouthpiece pitch
and its role in meeting Benade's requirements can go a long way to
helping customers/students overcome these types of problems.

-Some mouthpieces produce a "warble" on some models of saxophones.  The
typical approach is to blindly do trial and error until the problem goes
away.  The key to understanding the cause of the warble and therefore
its solution, I believe lies in better understanding the mouthpiece
substitution for the missing cone.

-There are dozens of other ideas, but this should get the point across.
Let me know if you have any further questions.

John



--- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, "Steve Keller"
<esteban_cadenza@...> wrote:

Maybe if Lance, John and Toby can tell us what they are trying to
accomplish by their studies I would understand.  (I think I know what
Steve G. wants to accomplish - no offense intended, BTW, I am a great
admirer of Mr. Goodson.) And I DO appreciate the concept of knowledge
for its own sake, but if we could just get an idea of why these guys are
fighting over the resonant frequency of an alto neck and how they expect
that to improve the world of saxophone, it would be nice.

In other words, what's the point?  I'm not being sarcastic, I really
want to know.  I sincerely hope that the point is not, as has been
implied by some, merely self-aggrandizement.  I'll shut up now.

Steve Keller

My invitation to you stands ....I believe your peers in the discussion have already joined my group. 


Sent on the Sprint® Now Network from my BlackBerry®

-----Original Message-----
From: "John" 
Date: Fri, 19 Mar 2010 02:23:23 
To: 
Subject: [MouthpieceWork] Re: Theory and Practice and Money

On Tue Jan 19, 2010 1:25 am  in message 8199  STEVE GOODSON wrote:

Anyone who is interested in discussing saxophone acoustics is welcome on
my group.
I will not allow trolls, anyone with a record of posting false
information about me, stalking me,  or anyone who has sent obscenity
filled emails to my wife. I think that is more than reasonable. It's
my house, and I will determine who comes through the front door.

Of course we both know you were referring to me.  Were you not telling
the truth then, or are you not telling the truth now?

--- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, saxgourmet@... wrote:
>
> Of course you would
>
>
> Sent on the Sprint® Now Network from my BlackBerry®
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: "John" jtalcott47@...
> Date: Fri, 19 Mar 2010 00:20:21
> To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [MouthpieceWork] Re: Theory and Practice and Money
>
> So would I be welcome on that forum Steve?
>
> --- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, "STEVE GOODSON" saxgourmet@
wrote:
> >
> > Again, I offer the use of my Saxophone Acoustics group on Yahoo
> > Groups....you are welcome to discuss the esoteric nuances of
anything
> > saxophone acoustics related there...
> >
> >
> >
> > From: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
[mailto:MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com]
> > On Behalf Of gregwier
> > Sent: Thursday, March 18, 2010 5:13 PM
> > To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
> > Subject: [MouthpieceWork] Re: Theory and Practice and Money
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > It is probably time that some other members speak up about the
bickering,
> > pettiness and acrimony that has been associated with these
acoustical theory
> > and missing cone discussions. They seem to deteriorate in a personal
matter
> > rather than an academic one. They lack any conclusive useful advice
that is
> > the purpose of the site.
> >
> > The "missing cone" has been kicked around for about 7 plus years
now. The
> > only practical applications or use for pro refacers from the
discussion came
> > long ago recommending the use of a taped window with water
transferred to a
> > beaker to measure chamber volume or using a telescoping bore
measuring
> > device. I also like the quick and easy use of the literal digital
measuring
> > of my little and ring fingers.
> >
> > It has long been just another serving of pie in the sky at the
intellectual
> > dinner table instead of the meat and potatoes of mouthpiece work.
> >
> > --- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
> >  , "Steve Keller"
> >  wrote:
> > >
> > > I have been following with interest the long discussions on
acoustical
> > theory regarding mouthpieces, the "missing cone", "Frs" and other
exotic
> > critters. I offer the following observations:
> > >
> > > 1) The participants all SEEM to have an axe to grind. I make that
> > conclusion from the often aggressive, inflammatory and personal
remarks
> > contained in many posts.
> > >
> > > 2) The discussions seem to veer off into arguments over minutiae.
I think
> > this is a side effect of the previous observation, as the
participants joust
> > for points.
> > >
> > > 3) Very little posting happens about "mouthpiece work", such as
"varying
> > the angle of the baffle at the tip rail affects the harmonic
spectrum of the
> > test mouthpiece by increasing or decreasing the 4th through 7th
harmonics".
> > (Completely made up statement, btw, but in my limited experience
likely to
> > have some truth in it.)
> > >
> > > Speaking as an ex-professional saxophonist, now IT professional
who still
> > knows what to do with a tenor, and an amateur mouthpiece refacer, I
wish
> > that everyone in this discussion would:
> > >
> > > 1) Get over yourselves.
> > >
> > > 2) Do some analysis and experimentation that will actually a) help
the
> > rest of us in our mouthpiece work; or, b) help the rest of us make
some
> > money by being better refacers or manufacturers; or c) both of the
above.
> > >
> > > Keith B., I applaud your patience in allowing this discussion to
continue.
> > I assume you do so because you hope, as do I, that there will be
some nugget
> > of information that might guide us in our quest for better
mouthpiece
> > design. So far, the participants can't even define their terms the
same way.
> >
> > >
> > > For example, I still don't know what Frs is, with regard to
saxophones,
> > and I've read FMA and skimmed some of the papers mentioned in this
> > discussion. It's pretty clear that it means the "natural frequency
of the
> > reed on the staple" of an oboe reed plus staple played by itself,
but since
> > it's possible to vary that pitch with a good, clear tone by at least
a
> > musical 5th or so (I used to play a little oboe - we called it
playing the
> > "show-bo"...), I don't know what use it is, or if it can tell me if
the reed
> > I'm working on will work well on my oboe, or what. Ditto for the sax
> > mouthpiece, except that most folks can play an octave on the
mouthpiece by
> > itself.
> > >
> > > Maybe if Lance, John and Toby can tell us what they are trying to
> > accomplish by their studies I would understand. (I think I know what
Steve
> > G. wants to accomplish - no offense intended, BTW, I am a great
admirer of
> > Mr. Goodson.) And I DO appreciate the concept of knowledge for its
own sake,
> > but if we could just get an idea of why these guys are fighting over
the
> > resonant frequency of an alto neck and how they expect that to
improve the
> > world of saxophone, it would be nice.
> > >
> > > In other words, what's the point? I'm not being sarcastic, I
really want
> > to know. I sincerely hope that the point is not, as has been implied
by
> > some, merely self-aggrandizement.
> > >
> > > I'll shut up now.
> > >
> > > -Steve Keller
> > >
> >
>

To the Steves, Greg and others,

I ground my axes a long time ago. I'm only here to try to keep the discussion grounded on the acoustic facts as I understand them.

Personally, I think this discussion lost the forest for the trees a long time ago, particularly a couple of big trees. They are important, but they are hardly the forest. Personally I agree with Steve. If it were me I would suggest that it is well past time to start doing some experiments, and see if an how they jibe with the theory, instead of trying to figure out the internal volume to a microliter, the Frs to within a Hz or how a bend in the neck changes the sounding frequency. IMO there are too many other factors influencing intonation to get so focused on these parameters. We are well into territory that goes beyond where the science has definitive numbers, and--sorry to say it--speculating in minute detail about things of which we have no real understanding. It takes Scavone about 70 pages laden with extremely complex math to even approach a realistic model of what goes on in the sax. I'm tired of debating how many angels can dance on the head of the proverbial pin. 

I'm not against masturbation, but it is not as satisfying as sex in my experience. That being said, I personally don't mind the discussion continuing. I get so many spam messages every day, a couple more about missing cones don't really bother me, and I would ask those who have such negative feelings about them to consider why they cause such emotion. Aren't they easy to delete?

Still and all, I am perfectly happy to follow Steve's suggestion and move the discussion to the acoustics group, as long as everybody can participate who wishes to, but I really don't see that as a problem. In a worst case, it can always be moved back here, Keith willing. John, Lance, what do you think?

Toby

----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Steve Keller 
  To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com 
  Sent: Friday, March 19, 2010 6:40 AM
  Subject: [MouthpieceWork] Theory and Practice and Money


    
  I have been following with interest the long discussions on acoustical theory regarding mouthpieces, the "missing cone", "Frs" and other exotic critters. I offer the following observations:

  1) The participants all SEEM to have an axe to grind. I make that conclusion from the often aggressive, inflammatory and personal remarks contained in many posts.

  2) The discussions seem to veer off into arguments over minutiae. I think this is a side effect of the previous observation, as the participants joust for points.

  3) Very little posting happens about "mouthpiece work", such as "varying the angle of the baffle at the tip rail affects the harmonic spectrum of the test mouthpiece by increasing or decreasing the 4th through 7th harmonics". (Completely made up statement, btw, but in my limited experience likely to have some truth in it.)

  Speaking as an ex-professional saxophonist, now IT professional who still knows what to do with a tenor, and an amateur mouthpiece refacer, I wish that everyone in this discussion would:

  1) Get over yourselves. 

  2) Do some analysis and experimentation that will actually a) help the rest of us in our mouthpiece work; or, b) help the rest of us make some money by being better refacers or manufacturers; or c) both of the above.

  Keith B., I applaud your patience in allowing this discussion to continue. I assume you do so because you hope, as do I, that there will be some nugget of information that might guide us in our quest for better mouthpiece design. So far, the participants can't even define their terms the same way. 

  For example, I still don't know what Frs is, with regard to saxophones, and I've read FMA and skimmed some of the papers mentioned in this discussion. It's pretty clear that it means the "natural frequency of the reed on the staple" of an oboe reed plus staple played by itself, but since it's possible to vary that pitch with a good, clear tone by at least a musical 5th or so (I used to play a little oboe - we called it playing the "show-bo"...), I don't know what use it is, or if it can tell me if the reed I'm working on will work well on my oboe, or what. Ditto for the sax mouthpiece, except that most folks can play an octave on the mouthpiece by itself. 

  Maybe if Lance, John and Toby can tell us what they are trying to accomplish by their studies I would understand. (I think I know what Steve G. wants to accomplish - no offense intended, BTW, I am a great admirer of Mr. Goodson.) And I DO appreciate the concept of knowledge for its own sake, but if we could just get an idea of why these guys are fighting over the resonant frequency of an alto neck and how they expect that to improve the world of saxophone, it would be nice.

  In other words, what's the point? I'm not being sarcastic, I really want to know. I sincerely hope that the point is not, as has been implied by some, merely self-aggrandizement.

  I'll shut up now.

  -Steve Keller



  

As previously stated (repeatedly) everyone, including Talcott can
participate.

 

From: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com [mailto:MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com]
On Behalf Of Toby
Sent: Friday, March 19, 2010 8:30 AM
To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Theory and Practice and Money

 

  

To the Steves, Greg and others,

 

I ground my axes a long time ago. I'm only here to try to keep the
discussion grounded on the acoustic facts as I understand them.

 

Personally, I think this discussion lost the forest for the trees a long
time ago, particularly a couple of big trees. They are important, but they
are hardly the forest. Personally I agree with Steve. If it were me I would
suggest that it is well past time to start doing some experiments, and see
if an how they jibe with the theory, instead of trying to figure out the
internal volume to a microliter, the Frs to within a Hz or how a bend in the
neck changes the sounding frequency. IMO there are too many other factors
influencing intonation to get so focused on these parameters. We are well
into territory that goes beyond where the science has definitive numbers,
and--sorry to say it--speculating in minute detail about things of which we
have no real understanding. It takes Scavone about 70 pages laden with
extremely complex math to even approach a realistic model of what goes on in
the sax. I'm tired of debating how many angels can dance on the head of the
proverbial pin. 

 

I'm not against masturbation, but it is not as satisfying as sex in my
experience. That being said, I personally don't mind the discussion
continuing. I get so many spam messages every day, a couple more about
missing cones don't really bother me, and I would ask those who have such
negative feelings about them to consider why they cause such emotion. Aren't
they easy to delete?

 

Still and all, I am perfectly happy to follow Steve's suggestion and move
the discussion to the acoustics group, as long as everybody can participate
who wishes to, but I really don't see that as a problem. In a worst case, it
can always be moved back here, Keith willing. John, Lance, what do you
think?

 

Toby

 

----- Original Message ----- 

From: Steve Keller <mailto:esteban_cadenza@...>  

To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com 

Sent: Friday, March 19, 2010 6:40 AM

Subject: [MouthpieceWork] Theory and Practice and Money

 

  

I have been following with interest the long discussions on acoustical
theory regarding mouthpieces, the "missing cone", "Frs" and other exotic
critters. I offer the following observations:

1) The participants all SEEM to have an axe to grind. I make that conclusion
from the often aggressive, inflammatory and personal remarks contained in
many posts.

2) The discussions seem to veer off into arguments over minutiae. I think
this is a side effect of the previous observation, as the participants joust
for points.

3) Very little posting happens about "mouthpiece work", such as "varying the
angle of the baffle at the tip rail affects the harmonic spectrum of the
test mouthpiece by increasing or decreasing the 4th through 7th harmonics".
(Completely made up statement, btw, but in my limited experience likely to
have some truth in it.)

Speaking as an ex-professional saxophonist, now IT professional who still
knows what to do with a tenor, and an amateur mouthpiece refacer, I wish
that everyone in this discussion would:

1) Get over yourselves. 

2) Do some analysis and experimentation that will actually a) help the rest
of us in our mouthpiece work; or, b) help the rest of us make some money by
being better refacers or manufacturers; or c) both of the above.

Keith B., I applaud your patience in allowing this discussion to continue. I
assume you do so because you hope, as do I, that there will be some nugget
of information that might guide us in our quest for better mouthpiece
design. So far, the participants can't even define their terms the same way.


For example, I still don't know what Frs is, with regard to saxophones, and
I've read FMA and skimmed some of the papers mentioned in this discussion.
It's pretty clear that it means the "natural frequency of the reed on the
staple" of an oboe reed plus staple played by itself, but since it's
possible to vary that pitch with a good, clear tone by at least a musical
5th or so (I used to play a little oboe - we called it playing the
"show-bo"...), I don't know what use it is, or if it can tell me if the reed
I'm working on will work well on my oboe, or what. Ditto for the sax
mouthpiece, except that most folks can play an octave on the mouthpiece by
itself. 

Maybe if Lance, John and Toby can tell us what they are trying to accomplish
by their studies I would understand. (I think I know what Steve G. wants to
accomplish - no offense intended, BTW, I am a great admirer of Mr. Goodson.)
And I DO appreciate the concept of knowledge for its own sake, but if we
could just get an idea of why these guys are fighting over the resonant
frequency of an alto neck and how they expect that to improve the world of
saxophone, it would be nice.

In other words, what's the point? I'm not being sarcastic, I really want to
know. I sincerely hope that the point is not, as has been implied by some,
merely self-aggrandizement.

I'll shut up now.

-Steve Keller

"Maybe if Lance, John and Toby can tell us what they are trying to 
accomplish by their studies I would understand."

I know that I have done this a number of times, the last of which, was a clear response to Steve G, just a couple of days ago........

"They seem to deteriorate in a personal matter rather than an academic 
one."

I can only speak for myself regarding what appears to be bickering and nit-picking.  It is not a personal matter.  It is a matter of principle and the logic upon which the results being discussed are derived.  Quick example:  

I had a conversation the other day with my buddy John, on neck design.  John emphatically held that his SBA alto neck was designed specifically for his horn body. I accept that as true.  Examining John's Missing Cone Volume Study however, reveals a troubling (for me) contradiction.  If the the neck air column is indeed designed for the body, then when attached to the body, everything air column North of the body to the small end of the neck, is neck, which would include the neck tube, tenon, and the 1mm section of air column between the body and the tenon.  

John maintains however, that, while the cylindrical tenon air column is part of the neck, the cylindrical gap air column is not.  That leaves us with.....either Selmer found out they made the body 1mm too short and too narrow, and added the short and wider cylindrical section on afterward as a body extension, or the body is OK, and Selmer's design includes a revolutionary new and separate 1mm cylindrical section between the body and the neck.

Obviously, the tenon is just too short, and that is common.  If you believe that the tenon is part of the neck air column, then so too is that of the gap and it's length, volume, and diameter must be included in all analysis.  You can't just toss it out.  Frankly, I have a different view of where the tenon belongs, but it is this type of faulty logic which permeates John's method and his arguments which I find disturbing.  Enough of that.  

I have a different view on neck tenons.  In my forthcoming analysis, the tenon is considered part of the body.  The neck has no cylindrical section.  It ends where the physical bent neck tube ends, in the tenon ring.   All the horns I'm examining have one of my conical tenons installed, the same length as the original cylindrical tenon.  I found, at least on the horns I have here,  that matching the body tube diameter and continuing the body taper, results in the top end of the tenon matching the neck tube in diameter, to within .05 mm.

All this relates directly to mouthpieces in the end.

"They lack any conclusive useful advice that is the purpose of the 
site."

What one person might find extremely useful, another might find no use for at all.  Some want to be told what to do with clear, numbered directions.  Some like food for thought.  





      

Sorry Steve, but I  must respectfully decline your gracious offer.  With
all due respect I have no interest whatsoever in joining a forum in
which you have complete control over the membership and content.  But
thanks anyway.

John


--- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, "STEVE GOODSON" <saxgourmet@...>
wrote:
>
> As previously stated (repeatedly) everyone, including Talcott can
> participate.
>
>
>
> From: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
[mailto:MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com]
> On Behalf Of Toby
> Sent: Friday, March 19, 2010 8:30 AM
> To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Theory and Practice and Money
>
>
>
>
>
> To the Steves, Greg and others,
>
>
>
> I ground my axes a long time ago. I'm only here to try to keep the
> discussion grounded on the acoustic facts as I understand them.
>
>
>
> Personally, I think this discussion lost the forest for the trees a
long
> time ago, particularly a couple of big trees. They are important, but
they
> are hardly the forest. Personally I agree with Steve. If it were me I
would
> suggest that it is well past time to start doing some experiments, and
see
> if an how they jibe with the theory, instead of trying to figure out
the
> internal volume to a microliter, the Frs to within a Hz or how a bend
in the
> neck changes the sounding frequency. IMO there are too many other
factors
> influencing intonation to get so focused on these parameters. We are
well
> into territory that goes beyond where the science has definitive
numbers,
> and--sorry to say it--speculating in minute detail about things of
which we
> have no real understanding. It takes Scavone about 70 pages laden with
> extremely complex math to even approach a realistic model of what goes
on in
> the sax. I'm tired of debating how many angels can dance on the head
of the
> proverbial pin.
>
>
>
> I'm not against masturbation, but it is not as satisfying as sex in my
> experience. That being said, I personally don't mind the discussion
> continuing. I get so many spam messages every day, a couple more about
> missing cones don't really bother me, and I would ask those who have
such
> negative feelings about them to consider why they cause such emotion.
Aren't
> they easy to delete?
>
>
>
> Still and all, I am perfectly happy to follow Steve's suggestion and
move
> the discussion to the acoustics group, as long as everybody can
participate
> who wishes to, but I really don't see that as a problem. In a worst
case, it
> can always be moved back here, Keith willing. John, Lance, what do you
> think?
>
>
>
> Toby
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
>
> From: Steve Keller <mailto:esteban_cadenza@...
>
> To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
>
> Sent: Friday, March 19, 2010 6:40 AM
>
> Subject: [MouthpieceWork] Theory and Practice and Money
>
>
>
>
>
> I have been following with interest the long discussions on acoustical
> theory regarding mouthpieces, the "missing cone", "Frs" and other
exotic
> critters. I offer the following observations:
>
> 1) The participants all SEEM to have an axe to grind. I make that
conclusion
> from the often aggressive, inflammatory and personal remarks contained
in
> many posts.
>
> 2) The discussions seem to veer off into arguments over minutiae. I
think
> this is a side effect of the previous observation, as the participants
joust
> for points.
>
> 3) Very little posting happens about "mouthpiece work", such as
"varying the
> angle of the baffle at the tip rail affects the harmonic spectrum of
the
> test mouthpiece by increasing or decreasing the 4th through 7th
harmonics".
> (Completely made up statement, btw, but in my limited experience
likely to
> have some truth in it.)
>
> Speaking as an ex-professional saxophonist, now IT professional who
still
> knows what to do with a tenor, and an amateur mouthpiece refacer, I
wish
> that everyone in this discussion would:
>
> 1) Get over yourselves.
>
> 2) Do some analysis and experimentation that will actually a) help the
rest
> of us in our mouthpiece work; or, b) help the rest of us make some
money by
> being better refacers or manufacturers; or c) both of the above.
>
> Keith B., I applaud your patience in allowing this discussion to
continue. I
> assume you do so because you hope, as do I, that there will be some
nugget
> of information that might guide us in our quest for better mouthpiece
> design. So far, the participants can't even define their terms the
same way.
>
>
> For example, I still don't know what Frs is, with regard to
saxophones, and
> I've read FMA and skimmed some of the papers mentioned in this
discussion.
> It's pretty clear that it means the "natural frequency of the reed on
the
> staple" of an oboe reed plus staple played by itself, but since it's
> possible to vary that pitch with a good, clear tone by at least a
musical
> 5th or so (I used to play a little oboe - we called it playing the
> "show-bo"...), I don't know what use it is, or if it can tell me if
the reed
> I'm working on will work well on my oboe, or what. Ditto for the sax
> mouthpiece, except that most folks can play an octave on the
mouthpiece by
> itself.
>
> Maybe if Lance, John and Toby can tell us what they are trying to
accomplish
> by their studies I would understand. (I think I know what Steve G.
wants to
> accomplish - no offense intended, BTW, I am a great admirer of Mr.
Goodson.)
> And I DO appreciate the concept of knowledge for its own sake, but if
we
> could just get an idea of why these guys are fighting over the
resonant
> frequency of an alto neck and how they expect that to improve the
world of
> saxophone, it would be nice.
>
> In other words, what's the point? I'm not being sarcastic, I really
want to
> know. I sincerely hope that the point is not, as has been implied by
some,
> merely self-aggrandizement.
>
> I'll shut up now.
>
> -Steve Keller
>

...or close enough.  Here is a gem from Ralph Morgan via Sax Journal that is food for thought.  I have most of Ralph's columns, but when I asked SJ a few years ago if I could post scans of them on the Yahoo Mouthpiece Work site, they would not give permission.  I'm sending this one out anyhow.  I'll deleted after a while.

I did not agree with a lot of Ralph's writings.  But he did "put it out there" (though lacking some details) and was a master craftsman.   Enjoy this column from July/Aug 1990.


      

Well, so be it..never say you were not invited to the party. I can only
surmise that you have another agenda other than discussing saxophone
acoustics....

 

From: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com [mailto:MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com]
On Behalf Of John
Sent: Friday, March 19, 2010 9:34 AM
To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [MouthpieceWork] Re: Theory and Practice and Money

 

  

Sorry Steve, but I must respectfully decline your gracious offer. With
all due respect I have no interest whatsoever in joining a forum in
which you have complete control over the membership and content. But
thanks anyway.

John

--- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
<mailto:MouthpieceWork%40yahoogroups.com> , "STEVE GOODSON" <saxgourmet@...>
wrote:
>
> As previously stated (repeatedly) everyone, including Talcott can
> participate.
>
>
>
> From: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
<mailto:MouthpieceWork%40yahoogroups.com> 
[mailto:MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
<mailto:MouthpieceWork%40yahoogroups.com> ]
> On Behalf Of Toby
> Sent: Friday, March 19, 2010 8:30 AM
> To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
<mailto:MouthpieceWork%40yahoogroups.com> 
> Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Theory and Practice and Money
>
>
>
>
>
> To the Steves, Greg and others,
>
>
>
> I ground my axes a long time ago. I'm only here to try to keep the
> discussion grounded on the acoustic facts as I understand them.
>
>
>
> Personally, I think this discussion lost the forest for the trees a
long
> time ago, particularly a couple of big trees. They are important, but
they
> are hardly the forest. Personally I agree with Steve. If it were me I
would
> suggest that it is well past time to start doing some experiments, and
see
> if an how they jibe with the theory, instead of trying to figure out
the
> internal volume to a microliter, the Frs to within a Hz or how a bend
in the
> neck changes the sounding frequency. IMO there are too many other
factors
> influencing intonation to get so focused on these parameters. We are
well
> into territory that goes beyond where the science has definitive
numbers,
> and--sorry to say it--speculating in minute detail about things of
which we
> have no real understanding. It takes Scavone about 70 pages laden with
> extremely complex math to even approach a realistic model of what goes
on in
> the sax. I'm tired of debating how many angels can dance on the head
of the
> proverbial pin.
>
>
>
> I'm not against masturbation, but it is not as satisfying as sex in my
> experience. That being said, I personally don't mind the discussion
> continuing. I get so many spam messages every day, a couple more about
> missing cones don't really bother me, and I would ask those who have
such
> negative feelings about them to consider why they cause such emotion.
Aren't
> they easy to delete?
>
>
>
> Still and all, I am perfectly happy to follow Steve's suggestion and
move
> the discussion to the acoustics group, as long as everybody can
participate
> who wishes to, but I really don't see that as a problem. In a worst
case, it
> can always be moved back here, Keith willing. John, Lance, what do you
> think?
>
>
>
> Toby
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
>
> From: Steve Keller <mailto:esteban_cadenza@...
>
> To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
<mailto:MouthpieceWork%40yahoogroups.com> 
>
> Sent: Friday, March 19, 2010 6:40 AM
>
> Subject: [MouthpieceWork] Theory and Practice and Money
>
>
>
>
>
> I have been following with interest the long discussions on acoustical
> theory regarding mouthpieces, the "missing cone", "Frs" and other
exotic
> critters. I offer the following observations:
>
> 1) The participants all SEEM to have an axe to grind. I make that
conclusion
> from the often aggressive, inflammatory and personal remarks contained
in
> many posts.
>
> 2) The discussions seem to veer off into arguments over minutiae. I
think
> this is a side effect of the previous observation, as the participants
joust
> for points.
>
> 3) Very little posting happens about "mouthpiece work", such as
"varying the
> angle of the baffle at the tip rail affects the harmonic spectrum of
the
> test mouthpiece by increasing or decreasing the 4th through 7th
harmonics".
> (Completely made up statement, btw, but in my limited experience
likely to
> have some truth in it.)
>
> Speaking as an ex-professional saxophonist, now IT professional who
still
> knows what to do with a tenor, and an amateur mouthpiece refacer, I
wish
> that everyone in this discussion would:
>
> 1) Get over yourselves.
>
> 2) Do some analysis and experimentation that will actually a) help the
rest
> of us in our mouthpiece work; or, b) help the rest of us make some
money by
> being better refacers or manufacturers; or c) both of the above.
>
> Keith B., I applaud your patience in allowing this discussion to
continue. I
> assume you do so because you hope, as do I, that there will be some
nugget
> of information that might guide us in our quest for better mouthpiece
> design. So far, the participants can't even define their terms the
same way.
>
>
> For example, I still don't know what Frs is, with regard to
saxophones, and
> I've read FMA and skimmed some of the papers mentioned in this
discussion.
> It's pretty clear that it means the "natural frequency of the reed on
the
> staple" of an oboe reed plus staple played by itself, but since it's
> possible to vary that pitch with a good, clear tone by at least a
musical
> 5th or so (I used to play a little oboe - we called it playing the
> "show-bo"...), I don't know what use it is, or if it can tell me if
the reed
> I'm working on will work well on my oboe, or what. Ditto for the sax
> mouthpiece, except that most folks can play an octave on the
mouthpiece by
> itself.
>
> Maybe if Lance, John and Toby can tell us what they are trying to
accomplish
> by their studies I would understand. (I think I know what Steve G.
wants to
> accomplish - no offense intended, BTW, I am a great admirer of Mr.
Goodson.)
> And I DO appreciate the concept of knowledge for its own sake, but if
we
> could just get an idea of why these guys are fighting over the
resonant
> frequency of an alto neck and how they expect that to improve the
world of
> saxophone, it would be nice.
>
> In other words, what's the point? I'm not being sarcastic, I really
want to
> know. I sincerely hope that the point is not, as has been implied by
some,
> merely self-aggrandizement.
>
> I'll shut up now.
>
> -Steve Keller
>

As many of you know, I write a column about saxophone design for every issue
of The Saxophone Journal and have done so for some time. As far as I know,
ALL prior issues are available, going back for MANY years. There is a great
deal of very useful information which is somewhat timeless in character in
these back issues. They are available from the publisher, Dorn Publications.

 

From: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com [mailto:MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com]
On Behalf Of Keith Bradbury
Sent: Friday, March 19, 2010 9:49 AM
To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [MouthpieceWork] It was 20 years ago today... [2 Attachments]

 

  

[Attachment(s) from Keith Bradbury included below] 

...or close enough.  Here is a gem from Ralph Morgan via Sax Journal that is
food for thought.  I have most of Ralph's columns, but when I asked SJ a few
years ago if I could post scans of them on the Yahoo Mouthpiece Work site,
they would not give permission.  I'm sending this one out anyhow.  I'll
deleted after a while.

 

I did not agree with a lot of Ralph's writings.  But he did "put it out
there" (though lacking some details) and was a master craftsman.   Enjoy
this column from July/Aug 1990.

 

What have I been discussing on this on this forum since January and
putting up paper after paper about on my acoustics website for review
and comment?   What would that other agenda be if it is not discussing
saxophone acoustics?

The fact of the matter is that I know far too well how your other forums
been run in the past to be comfortable participating on one now.  If
anyone would like to know the backstory on this I would be happy to
answer a personal email, since this forum is not a proper setting to air
dirty laundry.

--- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, "STEVE GOODSON" <saxgourmet@...>
wrote:
>
> Well, so be it..never say you were not invited to the party. I can
only
> surmise that you have another agenda other than discussing saxophone
> acoustics....
>
>
>
> From: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
[mailto:MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com]
> On Behalf Of John
> Sent: Friday, March 19, 2010 9:34 AM
> To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [MouthpieceWork] Re: Theory and Practice and Money
>
>
>
>
>
> Sorry Steve, but I must respectfully decline your gracious offer. With
> all due respect I have no interest whatsoever in joining a forum in
> which you have complete control over the membership and content. But
> thanks anyway.
>
> John
>
> --- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
> <mailto:MouthpieceWork%40yahoogroups.com> , "STEVE GOODSON"
saxgourmet@
> wrote:
> >
> > As previously stated (repeatedly) everyone, including Talcott can
> > participate.
> >
> >
> >
> > From: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
> <mailto:MouthpieceWork%40yahoogroups.com>
> [mailto:MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
> <mailto:MouthpieceWork%40yahoogroups.com> ]
> > On Behalf Of Toby
> > Sent: Friday, March 19, 2010 8:30 AM
> > To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
> <mailto:MouthpieceWork%40yahoogroups.com>
> > Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Theory and Practice and Money
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > To the Steves, Greg and others,
> >
> >
> >
> > I ground my axes a long time ago. I'm only here to try to keep the
> > discussion grounded on the acoustic facts as I understand them.
> >
> >
> >
> > Personally, I think this discussion lost the forest for the trees a
> long
> > time ago, particularly a couple of big trees. They are important,
but
> they
> > are hardly the forest. Personally I agree with Steve. If it were me
I
> would
> > suggest that it is well past time to start doing some experiments,
and
> see
> > if an how they jibe with the theory, instead of trying to figure out
> the
> > internal volume to a microliter, the Frs to within a Hz or how a
bend
> in the
> > neck changes the sounding frequency. IMO there are too many other
> factors
> > influencing intonation to get so focused on these parameters. We are
> well
> > into territory that goes beyond where the science has definitive
> numbers,
> > and--sorry to say it--speculating in minute detail about things of
> which we
> > have no real understanding. It takes Scavone about 70 pages laden
with
> > extremely complex math to even approach a realistic model of what
goes
> on in
> > the sax. I'm tired of debating how many angels can dance on the head
> of the
> > proverbial pin.
> >
> >
> >
> > I'm not against masturbation, but it is not as satisfying as sex in
my
> > experience. That being said, I personally don't mind the discussion
> > continuing. I get so many spam messages every day, a couple more
about
> > missing cones don't really bother me, and I would ask those who have
> such
> > negative feelings about them to consider why they cause such
emotion.
> Aren't
> > they easy to delete?
> >
> >
> >
> > Still and all, I am perfectly happy to follow Steve's suggestion and
> move
> > the discussion to the acoustics group, as long as everybody can
> participate
> > who wishes to, but I really don't see that as a problem. In a worst
> case, it
> > can always be moved back here, Keith willing. John, Lance, what do
you
> > think?
> >
> >
> >
> > Toby
> >
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> >
> > From: Steve Keller <mailto:esteban_cadenza@
> >
> > To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
> <mailto:MouthpieceWork%40yahoogroups.com>
> >
> > Sent: Friday, March 19, 2010 6:40 AM
> >
> > Subject: [MouthpieceWork] Theory and Practice and Money
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > I have been following with interest the long discussions on
acoustical
> > theory regarding mouthpieces, the "missing cone", "Frs" and other
> exotic
> > critters. I offer the following observations:
> >
> > 1) The participants all SEEM to have an axe to grind. I make that
> conclusion
> > from the often aggressive, inflammatory and personal remarks
contained
> in
> > many posts.
> >
> > 2) The discussions seem to veer off into arguments over minutiae. I
> think
> > this is a side effect of the previous observation, as the
participants
> joust
> > for points.
> >
> > 3) Very little posting happens about "mouthpiece work", such as
> "varying the
> > angle of the baffle at the tip rail affects the harmonic spectrum of
> the
> > test mouthpiece by increasing or decreasing the 4th through 7th
> harmonics".
> > (Completely made up statement, btw, but in my limited experience
> likely to
> > have some truth in it.)
> >
> > Speaking as an ex-professional saxophonist, now IT professional who
> still
> > knows what to do with a tenor, and an amateur mouthpiece refacer, I
> wish
> > that everyone in this discussion would:
> >
> > 1) Get over yourselves.
> >
> > 2) Do some analysis and experimentation that will actually a) help
the
> rest
> > of us in our mouthpiece work; or, b) help the rest of us make some
> money by
> > being better refacers or manufacturers; or c) both of the above.
> >
> > Keith B., I applaud your patience in allowing this discussion to
> continue. I
> > assume you do so because you hope, as do I, that there will be some
> nugget
> > of information that might guide us in our quest for better
mouthpiece
> > design. So far, the participants can't even define their terms the
> same way.
> >
> >
> > For example, I still don't know what Frs is, with regard to
> saxophones, and
> > I've read FMA and skimmed some of the papers mentioned in this
> discussion.
> > It's pretty clear that it means the "natural frequency of the reed
on
> the
> > staple" of an oboe reed plus staple played by itself, but since it's
> > possible to vary that pitch with a good, clear tone by at least a
> musical
> > 5th or so (I used to play a little oboe - we called it playing the
> > "show-bo"...), I don't know what use it is, or if it can tell me if
> the reed
> > I'm working on will work well on my oboe, or what. Ditto for the sax
> > mouthpiece, except that most folks can play an octave on the
> mouthpiece by
> > itself.
> >
> > Maybe if Lance, John and Toby can tell us what they are trying to
> accomplish
> > by their studies I would understand. (I think I know what Steve G.
> wants to
> > accomplish - no offense intended, BTW, I am a great admirer of Mr.
> Goodson.)
> > And I DO appreciate the concept of knowledge for its own sake, but
if
> we
> > could just get an idea of why these guys are fighting over the
> resonant
> > frequency of an alto neck and how they expect that to improve the
> world of
> > saxophone, it would be nice.
> >
> > In other words, what's the point? I'm not being sarcastic, I really
> want to
> > know. I sincerely hope that the point is not, as has been implied by
> some,
> > merely self-aggrandizement.
> >
> > I'll shut up now.
> >
> > -Steve Keller
> >
>

Just so I'm not the victim of any attempt at innuendo here: let's all hear
publicly what problems there are with my other forums. No need to send
private messages. All I ask is that you stick to the facts, no theory, no
supposition, just the facts. Many members of this group are also members of
my other forums. Maybe they can share their experiences.

 

I've got hundreds of members in my forums. They all seem to be quite
content. Please be very specific about what you know that they don't, and
cut the innuendo crap.  Say it here and be specific. Just the facts, please.
No theory. Things that you have personal and direct knowledge of only....

 

From: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com [mailto:MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com]
On Behalf Of John
Sent: Friday, March 19, 2010 1:03 PM
To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [MouthpieceWork] Re: Theory and Practice and Money

 

  

What have I been discussing on this on this forum since January and
putting up paper after paper about on my acoustics website for review
and comment? What would that other agenda be if it is not discussing
saxophone acoustics?

The fact of the matter is that I know far too well how your other forums
been run in the past to be comfortable participating on one now. If
anyone would like to know the backstory on this I would be happy to
answer a personal email, since this forum is not a proper setting to air
dirty laundry.

--- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
<mailto:MouthpieceWork%40yahoogroups.com> , "STEVE GOODSON" <saxgourmet@...>
wrote:
>
> Well, so be it..never say you were not invited to the party. I can
only
> surmise that you have another agenda other than discussing saxophone
> acoustics....
>
>
>
> From: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
<mailto:MouthpieceWork%40yahoogroups.com> 
[mailto:MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
<mailto:MouthpieceWork%40yahoogroups.com> ]
> On Behalf Of John
> Sent: Friday, March 19, 2010 9:34 AM
> To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
<mailto:MouthpieceWork%40yahoogroups.com> 
> Subject: [MouthpieceWork] Re: Theory and Practice and Money
>
>
>
>
>
> Sorry Steve, but I must respectfully decline your gracious offer. With
> all due respect I have no interest whatsoever in joining a forum in
> which you have complete control over the membership and content. But
> thanks anyway.
>
> John
>
> --- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
<mailto:MouthpieceWork%40yahoogroups.com> 
> <mailto:MouthpieceWork%40yahoogroups.com> , "STEVE GOODSON"
saxgourmet@
> wrote:
> >
> > As previously stated (repeatedly) everyone, including Talcott can
> > participate.
> >
> >
> >
> > From: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
<mailto:MouthpieceWork%40yahoogroups.com> 
> <mailto:MouthpieceWork%40yahoogroups.com>
> [mailto:MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
<mailto:MouthpieceWork%40yahoogroups.com> 
> <mailto:MouthpieceWork%40yahoogroups.com> ]
> > On Behalf Of Toby
> > Sent: Friday, March 19, 2010 8:30 AM
> > To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
<mailto:MouthpieceWork%40yahoogroups.com> 
> <mailto:MouthpieceWork%40yahoogroups.com>
> > Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Theory and Practice and Money
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > To the Steves, Greg and others,
> >
> >
> >
> > I ground my axes a long time ago. I'm only here to try to keep the
> > discussion grounded on the acoustic facts as I understand them.
> >
> >
> >
> > Personally, I think this discussion lost the forest for the trees a
> long
> > time ago, particularly a couple of big trees. They are important,
but
> they
> > are hardly the forest. Personally I agree with Steve. If it were me
I
> would
> > suggest that it is well past time to start doing some experiments,
and
> see
> > if an how they jibe with the theory, instead of trying to figure out
> the
> > internal volume to a microliter, the Frs to within a Hz or how a
bend
> in the
> > neck changes the sounding frequency. IMO there are too many other
> factors
> > influencing intonation to get so focused on these parameters. We are
> well
> > into territory that goes beyond where the science has definitive
> numbers,
> > and--sorry to say it--speculating in minute detail about things of
> which we
> > have no real understanding. It takes Scavone about 70 pages laden
with
> > extremely complex math to even approach a realistic model of what
goes
> on in
> > the sax. I'm tired of debating how many angels can dance on the head
> of the
> > proverbial pin.
> >
> >
> >
> > I'm not against masturbation, but it is not as satisfying as sex in
my
> > experience. That being said, I personally don't mind the discussion
> > continuing. I get so many spam messages every day, a couple more
about
> > missing cones don't really bother me, and I would ask those who have
> such
> > negative feelings about them to consider why they cause such
emotion.
> Aren't
> > they easy to delete?
> >
> >
> >
> > Still and all, I am perfectly happy to follow Steve's suggestion and
> move
> > the discussion to the acoustics group, as long as everybody can
> participate
> > who wishes to, but I really don't see that as a problem. In a worst
> case, it
> > can always be moved back here, Keith willing. John, Lance, what do
you
> > think?
> >
> >
> >
> > Toby
> >
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> >
> > From: Steve Keller <mailto:esteban_cadenza@
> >
> > To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
<mailto:MouthpieceWork%40yahoogroups.com> 
> <mailto:MouthpieceWork%40yahoogroups.com>
> >
> > Sent: Friday, March 19, 2010 6:40 AM
> >
> > Subject: [MouthpieceWork] Theory and Practice and Money
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > I have been following with interest the long discussions on
acoustical
> > theory regarding mouthpieces, the "missing cone", "Frs" and other
> exotic
> > critters. I offer the following observations:
> >
> > 1) The participants all SEEM to have an axe to grind. I make that
> conclusion
> > from the often aggressive, inflammatory and personal remarks
contained
> in
> > many posts.
> >
> > 2) The discussions seem to veer off into arguments over minutiae. I
> think
> > this is a side effect of the previous observation, as the
participants
> joust
> > for points.
> >
> > 3) Very little posting happens about "mouthpiece work", such as
> "varying the
> > angle of the baffle at the tip rail affects the harmonic spectrum of
> the
> > test mouthpiece by increasing or decreasing the 4th through 7th
> harmonics".
> > (Completely made up statement, btw, but in my limited experience
> likely to
> > have some truth in it.)
> >
> > Speaking as an ex-professional saxophonist, now IT professional who
> still
> > knows what to do with a tenor, and an amateur mouthpiece refacer, I
> wish
> > that everyone in this discussion would:
> >
> > 1) Get over yourselves.
> >
> > 2) Do some analysis and experimentation that will actually a) help
the
> rest
> > of us in our mouthpiece work; or, b) help the rest of us make some
> money by
> > being better refacers or manufacturers; or c) both of the above.
> >
> > Keith B., I applaud your patience in allowing this discussion to
> continue. I
> > assume you do so because you hope, as do I, that there will be some
> nugget
> > of information that might guide us in our quest for better
mouthpiece
> > design. So far, the participants can't even define their terms the
> same way.
> >
> >
> > For example, I still don't know what Frs is, with regard to
> saxophones, and
> > I've read FMA and skimmed some of the papers mentioned in this
> discussion.
> > It's pretty clear that it means the "natural frequency of the reed
on
> the
> > staple" of an oboe reed plus staple played by itself, but since it's
> > possible to vary that pitch with a good, clear tone by at least a
> musical
> > 5th or so (I used to play a little oboe - we called it playing the
> > "show-bo"...), I don't know what use it is, or if it can tell me if
> the reed
> > I'm working on will work well on my oboe, or what. Ditto for the sax
> > mouthpiece, except that most folks can play an octave on the
> mouthpiece by
> > itself.
> >
> > Maybe if Lance, John and Toby can tell us what they are trying to
> accomplish
> > by their studies I would understand. (I think I know what Steve G.
> wants to
> > accomplish - no offense intended, BTW, I am a great admirer of Mr.
> Goodson.)
> > And I DO appreciate the concept of knowledge for its own sake, but
if
> we
> > could just get an idea of why these guys are fighting over the
> resonant
> > frequency of an alto neck and how they expect that to improve the
> world of
> > saxophone, it would be nice.
> >
> > In other words, what's the point? I'm not being sarcastic, I really
> want to
> > know. I sincerely hope that the point is not, as has been implied by
> some,
> > merely self-aggrandizement.
> >
> > I'll shut up now.
> >
> > -Steve Keller
> >
>

Thanks Keith that was an interesting reading.  Ralph Morgan certainly
understood that the mouthpiece design must match the geometry of the
saxophone and the neck.

He does however refer to the length of the saxophone from the tip of the
mouthpiece to the bell as the length that the scale is based upon.  With
the work of Benade and others we now know that the length that
determines the wavelengths and therefore the frequencies of the notes
begins at the apex of the missing cone which is well beyond the tip of
the mouthpiece.

This is illustrated in the scale drawing at this link:  Calculating
missing cone frequency.
 
<http://jbtsaxmusic.homestead.com/Calculating_missing_cone_frequency.pdf\
>
This is why I feel that discussions of the missing cone volume,
mouthpiece equivalent volume, and frequency of the mouthpiece and neck
apart from the saxophone (Frs) are both relevant and very important to
the central concept of this forum which is to find ways to make a
MOUTHPIECE WORK better and more efficiently.

My response to the critics would be to go to the bottom of the homepage
of this site and compare the activity of January, February, and March
with that of past years.


--- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, Keith Bradbury <kwbradbury@...>
wrote:
>
> ...or close enough.  Here is a gem from Ralph Morgan via Sax Journal
that is food for thought.  I have most of Ralph's columns, but when I
asked SJ a few years ago if I could post scans of them on the Yahoo
Mouthpiece Work site, they would not give permission.  I'm sending this
one out anyhow.  I'll deleted after a while.
>
> I did not agree with a lot of Ralph's writings.  But he did "put it
out there" (though lacking some details) and was a master craftsman.  
Enjoy this column from July/Aug 1990.
>

The increase in activity is due to three posters, is almost all off topic
from "mouthpiece work"....

 

From: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com [mailto:MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com]
On Behalf Of John
Sent: Friday, March 19, 2010 2:40 PM
To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [MouthpieceWork] Re: It was 20 years ago today...

 

  

Thanks Keith that was an interesting reading.  Ralph Morgan certainly
understood that the mouthpiece design must match the geometry of the
saxophone and the neck.

He does however refer to the length of the saxophone from the tip of the
mouthpiece to the bell as the length that the scale is based upon.  With the
work of Benade and others we now know that the length that determines the
wavelengths and therefore the frequencies of the notes begins at the apex of
the missing cone which is well beyond the tip of the mouthpiece.   

This is illustrated in the scale drawing at this link:  Calculating
<http://jbtsaxmusic.homestead.com/Calculating_missing_cone_frequency.pdf>
missing cone frequency.
 
This is why I feel that discussions of the missing cone volume, mouthpiece
equivalent volume, and frequency of the mouthpiece and neck apart from the
saxophone (Frs) are both relevant and very important to the central concept
of this forum which is to find ways to make a MOUTHPIECE WORK better and
more efficiently.

My response to the critics would be to go to the bottom of the homepage of
this site and compare the activity of January, February, and March with that
of past years.


--- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, Keith Bradbury <kwbradbury@...>
wrote:
>
> ...or close enough.  Here is a gem from Ralph Morgan via Sax Journal that
is food for thought.  I have most of Ralph's columns, but when I asked SJ a
few years ago if I could post scans of them on the Yahoo Mouthpiece Work
site, they would not give permission.  I'm sending this one out anyhow.
I'll deleted after a while.
> 
> I did not agree with a lot of Ralph's writings.  But he did "put it out
there" (though lacking some details) and was a master craftsman.   Enjoy
this column from July/Aug 1990.
>

"This is why I feel that discussions of the missing cone volume, 
mouthpiece equivalent volume, and frequency of the mouthpiece and neck 
apart from the saxophone (Frs) are both relevant and very important to 
the central concept of this forum which is to find ways to make a MOUTHPIECE
 WORK better and more efficiently."

I would agree with that......except for the entire neck being necessary to get an accurate frs.  LOL.  If you understand the acoustics, and it's not that difficult, then it is obvious. One might not need the information in order to make a nice facing or to figure out how to make and attach a new bite plate, but it is essential for anything having to do with chamber design and tuning.

Perhaps a list of recommended reading would help those inclined to be interested in the subject, but still have difficulty understanding how it applies.



      

I will not allow a discussion on problems with other forums or arguments on other forums to take place here.    


      

First of all I strongly disagree that a discussion of the process of
measuring and comparing the effective volume of a mouthpiece with that
of the missing cone it is a substitution for is off topic for this
forum.  I will not repeat my reasons articulated in another post.

There have been 1040 posts to date since January 1, 2010.   That
represents a 615.4% increase over the first 3 months of the previous
year which had only 169 total posts and the month isn't even over.

Of those 1040 posts:

-143 have been by Toby 13.8%
-135 have been by John  13%
-131 have been by Lance 12.6%

Total  409 posts  39.3%

If we removed all of these 409 posts accused of being "off topic" there
would still be 631 posts remaining
426 more than last year.

Steve G had 132 posts in that same given time.  Categorizing those posts
by their main content one finds the following:

- 45 posts were to complain about and argue with the acoustics
discussion  34%
- 43 posts were clearly intended to hype and market his products, boast
of his accomplishments, or to name drop  33%
- 12 posts were off topic in other ways ---NAMM, discussing reeds,
necks, straight bari, parabolic bores etc.  9%
- 32 posts were actually on the "pure topic" (by his definition) of
mouthpiece refacing and the tools required  24%

So by his own definition, 76% of his own posts were "off topic" in that
period of time.

Summary
The statement below is patently false.  People who live in glass houses
shouldn't throw stones.


--- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, "STEVE GOODSON" <saxgourmet@...>
wrote:
>
> The increase in activity is due to three posters, is almost all off
topic
> from "mouthpiece work"....
>
>
>
> From: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
[mailto:MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com]
> On Behalf Of John
> Sent: Friday, March 19, 2010 2:40 PM
> To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [MouthpieceWork] Re: It was 20 years ago today...
>
>
>
>
>
> Thanks Keith that was an interesting reading.  Ralph Morgan certainly
> understood that the mouthpiece design must match the geometry of the
> saxophone and the neck.
>
> He does however refer to the length of the saxophone from the tip of
the
> mouthpiece to the bell as the length that the scale is based upon. 
With the
> work of Benade and others we now know that the length that determines
the
> wavelengths and therefore the frequencies of the notes begins at the
apex of
> the missing cone which is well beyond the tip of the mouthpiece.
>
> This is illustrated in the scale drawing at this link:  Calculating
>
<http://jbtsaxmusic.homestead.com/Calculating_missing_cone_frequency.pdf\
>
> missing cone frequency.
>
> This is why I feel that discussions of the missing cone volume,
mouthpiece
> equivalent volume, and frequency of the mouthpiece and neck apart from
the
> saxophone (Frs) are both relevant and very important to the central
concept
> of this forum which is to find ways to make a MOUTHPIECE WORK better
and
> more efficiently.
>
> My response to the critics would be to go to the bottom of the
homepage of
> this site and compare the activity of January, February, and March
with that
> of past years.
>
>
> --- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, Keith Bradbury kwbradbury@
> wrote:
> >
> > ...or close enough.  Here is a gem from Ralph Morgan via Sax Journal
that
> is food for thought.  I have most of Ralph's columns, but when I asked
SJ a
> few years ago if I could post scans of them on the Yahoo Mouthpiece
Work
> site, they would not give permission.  I'm sending this one out
anyhow.
> I'll deleted after a while.
> >
> > I did not agree with a lot of Ralph's writings.  But he did "put it
out
> there" (though lacking some details) and was a master craftsman.  
Enjoy
> this column from July/Aug 1990.
> >
>

John, I have to agree with you.  Steve, its no secret how, on your forums, you often make it well known how you control what is said and take great pride in banning someone when you don't like what you read.
I do appreciate your work in design and inspiration in refinning the sax-I do have one of your tenors.  But this is not the place for overinflated ego's and I believe that is the point John is making.
But then, you are the sax maker to the stars....  

--- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, "STEVE GOODSON" <saxgourmet@...> wrote:
>
> Just so I'm not the victim of any attempt at innuendo here: let's all hear
> publicly what problems there are with my other forums. No need to send
> private messages. All I ask is that you stick to the facts, no theory, no
> supposition, just the facts. Many members of this group are also members of
> my other forums. Maybe they can share their experiences.
> 
>  
> 
> I've got hundreds of members in my forums. They all seem to be quite
> content. Please be very specific about what you know that they don't, and
> cut the innuendo crap.  Say it here and be specific. Just the facts, please.
> No theory. Things that you have personal and direct knowledge of only....
> 
>  
> 
> From: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com [mailto:MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com]
> On Behalf Of John
> Sent: Friday, March 19, 2010 1:03 PM
> To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [MouthpieceWork] Re: Theory and Practice and Money
> 
>  
> 
>   
> 
> What have I been discussing on this on this forum since January and
> putting up paper after paper about on my acoustics website for review
> and comment? What would that other agenda be if it is not discussing
> saxophone acoustics?
> 
> The fact of the matter is that I know far too well how your other forums
> been run in the past to be comfortable participating on one now. If
> anyone would like to know the backstory on this I would be happy to
> answer a personal email, since this forum is not a proper setting to air
> dirty laundry.
> 
> --- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
> <mailto:MouthpieceWork%40yahoogroups.com> , "STEVE GOODSON" <saxgourmet@>
> wrote:
> >
> > Well, so be it..never say you were not invited to the party. I can
> only
> > surmise that you have another agenda other than discussing saxophone
> > acoustics....
> >
> >
> >
> > From: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
> <mailto:MouthpieceWork%40yahoogroups.com> 
> [mailto:MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
> <mailto:MouthpieceWork%40yahoogroups.com> ]
> > On Behalf Of John
> > Sent: Friday, March 19, 2010 9:34 AM
> > To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
> <mailto:MouthpieceWork%40yahoogroups.com> 
> > Subject: [MouthpieceWork] Re: Theory and Practice and Money
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Sorry Steve, but I must respectfully decline your gracious offer. With
> > all due respect I have no interest whatsoever in joining a forum in
> > which you have complete control over the membership and content. But
> > thanks anyway.
> >
> > John
> >
> > --- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
> <mailto:MouthpieceWork%40yahoogroups.com> 
> > <mailto:MouthpieceWork%40yahoogroups.com> , "STEVE GOODSON"
> saxgourmet@
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > As previously stated (repeatedly) everyone, including Talcott can
> > > participate.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > From: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
> <mailto:MouthpieceWork%40yahoogroups.com> 
> > <mailto:MouthpieceWork%40yahoogroups.com>
> > [mailto:MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
> <mailto:MouthpieceWork%40yahoogroups.com> 
> > <mailto:MouthpieceWork%40yahoogroups.com> ]
> > > On Behalf Of Toby
> > > Sent: Friday, March 19, 2010 8:30 AM
> > > To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
> <mailto:MouthpieceWork%40yahoogroups.com> 
> > <mailto:MouthpieceWork%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Theory and Practice and Money
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > To the Steves, Greg and others,
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > I ground my axes a long time ago. I'm only here to try to keep the
> > > discussion grounded on the acoustic facts as I understand them.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Personally, I think this discussion lost the forest for the trees a
> > long
> > > time ago, particularly a couple of big trees. They are important,
> but
> > they
> > > are hardly the forest. Personally I agree with Steve. If it were me
> I
> > would
> > > suggest that it is well past time to start doing some experiments,
> and
> > see
> > > if an how they jibe with the theory, instead of trying to figure out
> > the
> > > internal volume to a microliter, the Frs to within a Hz or how a
> bend
> > in the
> > > neck changes the sounding frequency. IMO there are too many other
> > factors
> > > influencing intonation to get so focused on these parameters. We are
> > well
> > > into territory that goes beyond where the science has definitive
> > numbers,
> > > and--sorry to say it--speculating in minute detail about things of
> > which we
> > > have no real understanding. It takes Scavone about 70 pages laden
> with
> > > extremely complex math to even approach a realistic model of what
> goes
> > on in
> > > the sax. I'm tired of debating how many angels can dance on the head
> > of the
> > > proverbial pin.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > I'm not against masturbation, but it is not as satisfying as sex in
> my
> > > experience. That being said, I personally don't mind the discussion
> > > continuing. I get so many spam messages every day, a couple more
> about
> > > missing cones don't really bother me, and I would ask those who have
> > such
> > > negative feelings about them to consider why they cause such
> emotion.
> > Aren't
> > > they easy to delete?
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Still and all, I am perfectly happy to follow Steve's suggestion and
> > move
> > > the discussion to the acoustics group, as long as everybody can
> > participate
> > > who wishes to, but I really don't see that as a problem. In a worst
> > case, it
> > > can always be moved back here, Keith willing. John, Lance, what do
> you
> > > think?
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Toby
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > >
> > > From: Steve Keller <mailto:esteban_cadenza@
> > >
> > > To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
> <mailto:MouthpieceWork%40yahoogroups.com> 
> > <mailto:MouthpieceWork%40yahoogroups.com>
> > >
> > > Sent: Friday, March 19, 2010 6:40 AM
> > >
> > > Subject: [MouthpieceWork] Theory and Practice and Money
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > I have been following with interest the long discussions on
> acoustical
> > > theory regarding mouthpieces, the "missing cone", "Frs" and other
> > exotic
> > > critters. I offer the following observations:
> > >
> > > 1) The participants all SEEM to have an axe to grind. I make that
> > conclusion
> > > from the often aggressive, inflammatory and personal remarks
> contained
> > in
> > > many posts.
> > >
> > > 2) The discussions seem to veer off into arguments over minutiae. I
> > think
> > > this is a side effect of the previous observation, as the
> participants
> > joust
> > > for points.
> > >
> > > 3) Very little posting happens about "mouthpiece work", such as
> > "varying the
> > > angle of the baffle at the tip rail affects the harmonic spectrum of
> > the
> > > test mouthpiece by increasing or decreasing the 4th through 7th
> > harmonics".
> > > (Completely made up statement, btw, but in my limited experience
> > likely to
> > > have some truth in it.)
> > >
> > > Speaking as an ex-professional saxophonist, now IT professional who
> > still
> > > knows what to do with a tenor, and an amateur mouthpiece refacer, I
> > wish
> > > that everyone in this discussion would:
> > >
> > > 1) Get over yourselves.
> > >
> > > 2) Do some analysis and experimentation that will actually a) help
> the
> > rest
> > > of us in our mouthpiece work; or, b) help the rest of us make some
> > money by
> > > being better refacers or manufacturers; or c) both of the above.
> > >
> > > Keith B., I applaud your patience in allowing this discussion to
> > continue. I
> > > assume you do so because you hope, as do I, that there will be some
> > nugget
> > > of information that might guide us in our quest for better
> mouthpiece
> > > design. So far, the participants can't even define their terms the
> > same way.
> > >
> > >
> > > For example, I still don't know what Frs is, with regard to
> > saxophones, and
> > > I've read FMA and skimmed some of the papers mentioned in this
> > discussion.
> > > It's pretty clear that it means the "natural frequency of the reed
> on
> > the
> > > staple" of an oboe reed plus staple played by itself, but since it's
> > > possible to vary that pitch with a good, clear tone by at least a
> > musical
> > > 5th or so (I used to play a little oboe - we called it playing the
> > > "show-bo"...), I don't know what use it is, or if it can tell me if
> > the reed
> > > I'm working on will work well on my oboe, or what. Ditto for the sax
> > > mouthpiece, except that most folks can play an octave on the
> > mouthpiece by
> > > itself.
> > >
> > > Maybe if Lance, John and Toby can tell us what they are trying to
> > accomplish
> > > by their studies I would understand. (I think I know what Steve G.
> > wants to
> > > accomplish - no offense intended, BTW, I am a great admirer of Mr.
> > Goodson.)
> > > And I DO appreciate the concept of knowledge for its own sake, but
> if
> > we
> > > could just get an idea of why these guys are fighting over the
> > resonant
> > > frequency of an alto neck and how they expect that to improve the
> > world of
> > > saxophone, it would be nice.
> > >
> > > In other words, what's the point? I'm not being sarcastic, I really
> > want to
> > > know. I sincerely hope that the point is not, as has been implied by
> > some,
> > > merely self-aggrandizement.
> > >
> > > I'll shut up now.
> > >
> > > -Steve Keller
> > >
> >
>

Why doesn't everyone stop this nonsense now.  I don't care who is right or wrong.  Attacking peoples character  and calling them egoists and any other crap is totally unconstructive.  I am unbiased and think this is not what this forum or any any other is about ,  other than Nah  Nah nah nah Nah  .com
On Mar 19, 2010, at 12:02 PM, crcieslik wrote:

> John, I have to agree with you. Steve, its no secret how, on your forums, you often make it well known how you ntrol what is said and take great pride in banning someone when you don't like what you read.
> I do appreciate your work in design and inspiration in refinning the sax-I do have one of your tenors. But this is not the place for overinflated ego's and I believe that is the point John is making.
> But then, you are the sax maker to the stars.... 
> 
> --- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, "STEVE GOODSON" <saxgourmet@...> wrote:
> >
> > Just so I'm not the victim of any attempt at innuendo here: let's all hear
> > publicly what problems there are with my other forums. No need to send
> > private messages. All I ask is that you stick to the facts, no theory, no
> > supposition, just the facts. Many members of this group are also members of
> > my other forums. Maybe they can share their experiences.
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > I've got hundreds of members in my forums. They all seem to be quite
> > content. Please be very specific about what you know that they don't, and
> > cut the innuendo crap. Say it here and be specific. Just the facts, please.
> > No theory. Things that you have personal and direct knowledge of only....
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > From: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com [mailto:MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com]
> > On Behalf Of John
> > Sent: Friday, March 19, 2010 1:03 PM
> > To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
> > Subject: [MouthpieceWork] Re: Theory and Practice and Money
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > What have I been discussing on this on this forum since January and
> > putting up paper after paper about on my acoustics website for review
> > and comment? What would that other agenda be if it is not discussing
> > saxophone acoustics?
> > 
> > The fact of the matter is that I know far too well how your other forums
> > been run in the past to be comfortable participating on one now. If
> > anyone would like to know the backstory on this I would be happy to
> > answer a personal email, since this forum is not a proper setting to air
> > dirty laundry.
> > 
> > --- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
> > <mailto:MouthpieceWork%40yahoogroups.com> , "STEVE GOODSON" <saxgourmet@>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > Well, so be it..never say you were not invited to the party. I can
> > only
> > > surmise that you have another agenda other than discussing saxophone
> > > acoustics....
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > From: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
> > <mailto:MouthpieceWork%40yahoogroups.com> 
> > [mailto:MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
> > <mailto:MouthpieceWork%40yahoogroups.com> ]
> > > On Behalf Of John
> > > Sent: Friday, March 19, 2010 9:34 AM
> > > To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
> > <mailto:MouthpieceWork%40yahoogroups.com> 
> > > Subject: [MouthpieceWork] Re: Theory and Practice and Money
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Sorry Steve, but I must respectfully decline your gracious offer. With
> > > all due respect I have no interest whatsoever in joining a forum in
> > > which you have complete control over the membership and content. But
> > > thanks anyway.
> > >
> > > John
> > >
> > > --- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
> > <mailto:MouthpieceWork%40yahoogroups.com> 
> > > <mailto:MouthpieceWork%40yahoogroups.com> , "STEVE GOODSON"
> > saxgourmet@
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > As previously stated (repeatedly) everyone, including Talcott can
> > > > participate.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > From: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
> > <mailto:MouthpieceWork%40yahoogroups.com> 
> > > <mailto:MouthpieceWork%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > [mailto:MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
> > <mailto:MouthpieceWork%40yahoogroups.com> 
> > > <mailto:MouthpieceWork%40yahoogroups.com> ]
> > > > On Behalf Of Toby
> > > > Sent: Friday, March 19, 2010 8:30 AM
> > > > To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
> > <mailto:MouthpieceWork%40yahoogroups.com> 
> > > <mailto:MouthpieceWork%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > > Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Theory and Practice and Money
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > To the Steves, Greg and others,
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > I ground my axes a long time ago. I'm only here to try to keep the
> > > > discussion grounded on the acoustic facts as I understand them.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Personally, I think this discussion lost the forest for the trees a
> > > long
> > > > time ago, particularly a couple of big trees. They are important,
> > but
> > > they
> > > > are hardly the forest. Personally I agree with Steve. If it were me
> > I
> > > would
> > > > suggest that it is well past time to start doing some experiments,
> > and
> > > see
> > > > if an how they jibe with the theory, instead of trying to figure out
> > > the
> > > > internal volume to a microliter, the Frs to within a Hz or how a
> > bend
> > > in the
> > > > neck changes the sounding frequency. IMO there are too many other
> > > factors
> > > > influencing intonation to get so focused on these parameters. We are
> > > well
> > > > into territory that goes beyond where the science has definitive
> > > numbers,
> > > > and--sorry to say it--speculating in minute detail about things of
> > > which we
> > > > have no real understanding. It takes Scavone about 70 pages laden
> > with
> > > > extremely complex math to even approach a realistic model of what
> > goes
> > > on in
> > > > the sax. I'm tired of debating how many angels can dance on the head
> > > of the
> > > > proverbial pin.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > I'm not against masturbation, but it is not as satisfying as sex in
> > my
> > > > experience. That being said, I personally don't mind the discussion
> > > > continuing. I get so many spam messages every day, a couple more
> > about
> > > > missing cones don't really bother me, and I would ask those who have
> > > such
> > > > negative feelings about them to consider why they cause such
> > emotion.
> > > Aren't
> > > > they easy to delete?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Still and all, I am perfectly happy to follow Steve's suggestion and
> > > move
> > > > the discussion to the acoustics group, as long as everybody can
> > > participate
> > > > who wishes to, but I really don't see that as a problem. In a worst
> > > case, it
> > > > can always be moved back here, Keith willing. John, Lance, what do
> > you
> > > > think?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Toby
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > >
> > > > From: Steve Keller <mailto:esteban_cadenza@
> > > >
> > > > To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
> > <mailto:MouthpieceWork%40yahoogroups.com> 
> > > <mailto:MouthpieceWork%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > >
> > > > Sent: Friday, March 19, 2010 6:40 AM
> > > >
> > > > Subject: [MouthpieceWork] Theory and Practice and Money
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > I have been following with interest the long discussions on
> > acoustical
> > > > theory regarding mouthpieces, the "missing cone", "Frs" and other
> > > exotic
> > > > critters. I offer the following observations:
> > > >
> > > > 1) The participants all SEEM to have an axe to grind. I make that
> > > conclusion
> > > > from the often aggressive, inflammatory and personal remarks
> > contained
> > > in
> > > > many posts.
> > > >
> > > > 2) The discussions seem to veer off into arguments over minutiae. I
> > > think
> > > > this is a side effect of the previous observation, as the
> > participants
> > > joust
> > > > for points.
> > > >
> > > > 3) Very little posting happens about "mouthpiece work", such as
> > > "varying the
> > > > angle of the baffle at the tip rail affects the harmonic spectrum of
> > > the
> > > > test mouthpiece by increasing or decreasing the 4th through 7th
> > > harmonics".
> > > > (Completely made up statement, btw, but in my limited experience
> > > likely to
> > > > have some truth in it.)
> > > >
> > > > Speaking as an ex-professional saxophonist, now IT professional who
> > > still
> > > > knows what to do with a tenor, and an amateur mouthpiece refacer, I
> > > wish
> > > > that everyone in this discussion would:
> > > >
> > > > 1) Get over yourselves.
> > > >
> > > > 2) Do some analysis and experimentation that will actually a) help
> > the
> > > rest
> > > > of us in our mouthpiece work; or, b) help the rest of us make some
> > > money by
> > > > being better refacers or manufacturers; or c) both of the above.
> > > >
> > > > Keith B., I applaud your patience in allowing this discussion to
> > > continue. I
> > > > assume you do so because you hope, as do I, that there will be some
> > > nugget
> > > > of information that might guide us in our quest for better
> > mouthpiece
> > > > design. So far, the participants can't even define their terms the
> > > same way.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > For example, I still don't know what Frs is, with regard to
> > > saxophones, and
> > > > I've read FMA and skimmed some of the papers mentioned in this
> > > discussion.
> > > > It's pretty clear that it means the "natural frequency of the reed
> > on
> > > the
> > > > staple" of an oboe reed plus staple played by itself, but since it's
> > > > possible to vary that pitch with a good, clear tone by at least a
> > > musical
> > > > 5th or so (I used to play a little oboe - we called it playing the
> > > > "show-bo"...), I don't know what use it is, or if it can tell me if
> > > the reed
> > > > I'm working on will work well on my oboe, or what. Ditto for the sax
> > > > mouthpiece, except that most folks can play an octave on the
> > > mouthpiece by
> > > > itself.
> > > >
> > > > Maybe if Lance, John and Toby can tell us what they are trying to
> > > accomplish
> > > > by their studies I would understand. (I think I know what Steve G.
> > > wants to
> > > > accomplish - no offense intended, BTW, I am a great admirer of Mr.
> > > Goodson.)
> > > > And I DO appreciate the concept of knowledge for its own sake, but
> > if
> > > we
> > > > could just get an idea of why these guys are fighting over the
> > > resonant
> > > > frequency of an alto neck and how they expect that to improve the
> > > world of
> > > > saxophone, it would be nice.
> > > >
> > > > In other words, what's the point? I'm not being sarcastic, I really
> > > want to
> > > > know. I sincerely hope that the point is not, as has been implied by
> > > some,
> > > > merely self-aggrandizement.
> > > >
> > > > I'll shut up now.
> > > >
> > > > -Steve Keller
> > > >
> > >
> >
> 
> 

I'm sorry Steve and John, you both ignored me on this.  I have set your membership status (back) to "moderated" to halt these types of posts here.  I will need to review each post you make before it is sent to the group.  There will be a time delay.  I will change the status back when I see you can interact with out bringing up these issues. 


--- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, Keith Bradbury <kwbradbury@...> wrote:
>
> I will not allow a discussion on problems with other forums or arguments on other forums to take place here.   
>

Fair enough...I have no problem with that....

 

From: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com [mailto:MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com]
On Behalf Of MojoBari
Sent: Saturday, March 20, 2010 11:52 AM
To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [MouthpieceWork] Re: Past problems with other forums

 

  

I'm sorry Steve and John, you both ignored me on this. I have set your
membership status (back) to "moderated" to halt these types of posts here. I
will need to review each post you make before it is sent to the group. There
will be a time delay. I will change the status back when I see you can
interact with out bringing up these issues. 

--- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
<mailto:MouthpieceWork%40yahoogroups.com> , Keith Bradbury <kwbradbury@...>
wrote:
>
> I will not allow a discussion on problems with other forums or arguments
on other forums to take place here.   
>