If I were playing a standard F horn, amoderately deep funnel easily produces the classic F horn tone so important to develop in young players before moving them on to modern equipment. For anyone interested in applying physics and common experience to choosing a cup shape, let me throw out some information that might not lead you to the conclusion you already feel in your heart, but that might aid some on doing some personal experimentation. The tone you get from a particular mouthpiece you may be using is very dependent on your personal concept of sound. Most of us learn to get the sound we want from the equipment we have. The obvious option is to change equipment. Suddenly changing to a deeper or shallower cup will make a very predictable change to your sound, but that initial change takes about a month to develop, until you achieve tyhe best sound you can get on the new equipment. This can lead to the very common love/hate relationship with a different mouthpiece every few days. Scott Laskey one explained to me that the proper depth of a mouthpiece scales with the length of the horn, which makes absolute sense from a phsics point of view. This implies that the deep funnel we like so much on our F horn is going to be too deep for our Bb horn, to produce a matching sound. Pop tone, a measure of the cup volume, has been found to be a very important factor to mouthpiece performance. If the deep funnel is s hortened to more closely match the Bb horn, the cup volume diminishes, raising the pop tone. Increasing the diameter of the cup, which most strong players do over time, gets the pop tone back down. A so called bowl shape cup is also used to increase volume. Before I lose players who prefer a funnel over a bowl, look at successful bowl shaped cups, and you quickly see they are really 'S' shaped. The bottom retains the funnel shape, and the volume is added just below the rim. Bach 3, or Schilke 31B, are very popular examples. As far as low playing goes, a deep funnel certainly favors the production of low notes, but that is very misleading to mouthpiece selection. I was specifically trained in fourth horn playing. The most difficult aspects of playing fourth are developing agility and a clear sound in the low register, but are absolutely essential to put a good bottom on a quartet. Since the horn plays an octave above it's length, the advantage of a deep cup is mostly irrelevant. Also, starting and stopping a long column of air is a slow process. An F horn with a deep funnel cup is going to be muddy and slow. However, a Bb horn with a shallower cup can move much more quickly, and doesn't waste energy trying to produce bass that the horn is not designed to play in the first place. It just muddies the tone. I find my Paxman 42M to be my best horn for playing fourth parts. With the F attachment on it and a few 'long' fingerings, I've even got enough F horn, C to C, to blend perfectly in that octave. Don't be afraid to experiment a bit to establish your own preferences. -----Original Message----- From: G <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: The Horn List <horn@music.memphis.edu> Sent: Tue, 12 Jul 2005 20:11:43 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Re: [Hornlist] mouthpiece rim contours/dimensions
> > Do rim contours/dimensions influence tone? If yes > - how so? - and - what > might the physics be behind this? > Hi, Yes. Some rims have a flat surface, with a definite inside edge. These rims can aid in staccato, as well as a more defined attack to a note, but can be a detriment to smooth legato playing. Some rims are more rounded on the surface, with less of an edge going into the cup. These rims can aid legato and slurs, but can be a detriment to staccato and more defined attacks. Which leads directely into the mouthpiece, which to me has more of an effect on tone than the contour of the rim...some mouthpieces have more of a cup, or bowl shape if you will. These mouthpieces can aid in a clearer high range, but can be a detriment to a good clear low range. Basically, the more cup, the brighter and more 'trumpet-like' the tone. Some mouthpieces have straighter sides, more like a funnel. These mouthpieces can aid in the production of a clearer low range, but can be a detriment to a good clear high range. Which leads directly to the bore, or diameter of the hole at the bottom of the cup, or funnel, of the mouthpiece. A smaller size bore can create a clearer, brighter high range, but can be a detriment to a clear, open low range. Some mouthpieces have a large diameter bore. These mouthpieces can aid in the creation of a more open, clearer low range, but can be a detriment to a clear, open high range. Farkas explained it best in The Art Of Horn Playing...you should find a mouthpiece that runs right down the middle of the extremes. A mouthpiece with a rounded surface and slight edge, with an inside that is between a cup and a funnel. That way you get a good compromise between the two extremes. If you don't have the Farkas book, go get it. By the way, you should also have a copy of The Hornplayer's Handbook, by Verne Reynolds. Note that nowhere in the above paragraph did I use the terms "can," or "will not." There are no absolutes, as I'm quite sure that anyone on the list can cite an example of a player who sounds fantastic on a mouthpiece that no one else would consider. To each his own. Gary Get Firefox!!http://www.mozilla.org/products/firefox/central.html _______________________________________________ post: horn@music.memphis.edu unsubscribe or set options at http://music.memphis.edu/mailman/options/horn/billbamberg%40aol.com _______________________________________________ post: horn@music.memphis.edu unsubscribe or set options at http://music.memphis.edu/mailman/options/horn/archive%40jab.org
