Hey Bach, why the "C"?

Post Reply
User avatar
mwpfoot
Posts: 78
Joined: Fri Mar 23, 2018 1:54 pm
Contact:

Hey Bach, why the "C"?

Post by mwpfoot »

I've been working things up for actual upcoming gigs (!) and discovered that a plain 11 fits me very well. There have been other mouthpieces that I've clicked with, but on this piece (with my unrefined chops) I'm able to attack without spitting, I'm able to actual include grace notes in my melodious etudes, I'm able to play quiet and lip slur, ... having a blast doing little style things that used to be relatively clunky for me.

I saw Posaunus threw a lot of great conversation topics in a recent thread, so why not include that here:
Posaunus wrote:Not that it's of world-shaking import, but I'd like some clarification about the Bach small-shank trombone mouthpieces and their history.

1. First, didn't the "Non-C" cups (e.g., 12, 11, 7, etc.) historically precede the "C" cups (12C, 11C, 7C, ...)?

2. Is it true that the C cups are a bit shallower than the non-C cups, giving a more "brilliant" sound and facilitating high range - but that the rims are (roughly - within Bach's rather wide tolerance range) identical to their non-C sibling? [So an 11C has the same rim I.D. and shape as an 11.]

3. I find it strange that about the only Bach mouthpieces discussed on this forum (probably representing what trombonists play) are the C version (12C, 11C, 7C). Why? [I tend to prefer 11 to 11C and 7 to 7C.]

4. I see these mouthpieces as being grouped by some into two "families" - I guess based somehow on cup (and rim?) shape:
• 12C / 7C
• 11C / 6½AL / 6¾C [I presume that the 6 (I've never seen one) and 6½A are also in the 11C family?]

5. I've recently tried a Bach 9 mouthpiece. It plays pretty nicely (though it's considerably bigger than Bach's Cup I.D. spec.). Which family does the Bach 9 occupy?

Thanks for any information you can provide.
I now have two plain 11s, and in addition to the cup being deeper and more conical than my 11C, which just feels like a tight blow to me, the throat appears significantly bigger on both. I'm wondering if this is the aspect that is really resonating with me, the guy who barely thinks about airstream? The rims on my two samples are different: the 2000's one is larger/flatter than the Mt. Vernon. But they both play waaaay better on my .508 than anything else.

Yes, they are more mellow than the C. I can understand feeling buried in a brassy setting. But ... it's a different world now: I'm close mic'd and essentially 100% PA in the rock band this is all for, not something that was possible when the C took over the family. I really want this to work.

There's a 7 around here somewhere and maybe a 9. Probably worth finding them and taking another spin!

:good:
brassmedic
Posts: 965
Joined: Fri Dec 14, 2018 12:07 pm
Contact:

Re: Hey Bach, why the "C"?

Post by brassmedic »

We had an 11 at my high school. Was my favorite mouthpiece back in the olden days. Seems too small now. I like 6 1/2 AL for .500 bore stuff. Might be the result of learning to play large bore instruments.
Brad Close Brass Instruments - brassmedic.com
User avatar
BGuttman
Posts: 5896
Joined: Thu Mar 22, 2018 7:19 am
Location: Cow Hampshire

Re: Hey Bach, why the "C"?

Post by BGuttman »

Bach originally had 5 cup depths: A (deepest), B, C, D, and E (shallowest). Bach chose to not label the B cup with a letter. So an 11 is really an 11B.

Conventional wisdom of the day was the B cup was for Euphonium/Baritone Horn and the C cup was for trombone. B cup could also be more for the Symphonic sound.

Note that AL is not a variant of the A cup -- it's one of the first "Artist Models".
Bruce Guttman
Merrimack Valley Philharmonic Orchestra
"Almost Professional"
User avatar
Kingfan
Posts: 1132
Joined: Wed Apr 11, 2018 8:32 pm
Location: Cleveland, OH

Re: Hey Bach, why the "C"?

Post by Kingfan »

Yep. I had trouble finding a mouthpiece that worked on my .508 trombone when I switched from large to small bore horns. I tried a 7C, 12C, and others with no luck. Doug Elliott suggested trying a Bach 5, and it worked great. I now play on one of his custom combos similar in characteristics.
I'm not a complete idiot, some parts are still missing! :D
Greg Songer
King 606, King 3B-F: DE LT101/LTD/D3
King 4B-F: Bach 5G Megatone gold plated
King 2107 bass: DE MB109/MB J/J8 King
User avatar
Burgerbob
Posts: 4528
Joined: Mon Apr 23, 2018 8:10 pm
Location: LA
Contact:

Re: Hey Bach, why the "C"?

Post by Burgerbob »

I have a whole collection of no letter Bachs. I do like them, but the throats are a little small for the size of the rest of the mouthpiece. I eventually gave up on them because of this.
Aidan Ritchie, LA area player and teacher
User avatar
Matt K
Verified
Posts: 3945
Joined: Tue Mar 20, 2018 10:34 pm
Contact:

Re: Hey Bach, why the "C"?

Post by Matt K »

BGuttman wrote: Fri Apr 30, 2021 2:49 am Bach originally had 5 cup depths: A (deepest), B, C, D, and E (shallowest). Bach chose to not label the B cup with a letter. So an 11 is really an 11B.

Conventional wisdom of the day was the B cup was for Euphonium/Baritone Horn and the C cup was for trombone. B cup could also be more for the Symphonic sound.

Note that AL is not a variant of the A cup -- it's one of the first "Artist Models".
And the "L" specifies the reamer used for the backbone, resulting in the large shank version having a tighter backbone than the large shank 6.5A and the small shank 6.5AL having a larger backbone than the small shank 6.5A. Obviously( :???: )
User avatar
mwpfoot
Posts: 78
Joined: Fri Mar 23, 2018 1:54 pm
Contact:

Re: Hey Bach, why the "C"?

Post by mwpfoot »

Only time will tell if my current fun on the 11 is just the next step on the lifelong journey back to 6 1/2.

:cool:
Post Reply

Return to “Mouthpieces”