Who in their right mind plays a Bach 1 1/2G ??

ttf_blast · Post by **ttf_blast** » Sat Apr 08, 2006 6:42 am

Ho ! ho ! Kevin.
The better low register of the small Raths, is down to the backbore shape and length.... the bore is actually smaller than the Bach !
Mt Vernon Bachs were made of a darker alloy that may well have an effect on sound and feel.... metals vary a lot between makers. Minick used a darker brass... early Black- Hill pieces are light yellow..... it's a factor.... amongst many.
Chris Stearn.

ttf_anonymous · Post by **ttf_anonymous** » Sat Apr 08, 2006 3:19 pm

I think the tides are turning, infact today one of my section mates switched from a greigo .5 to a 2. Even though its a rather dramatic change, he said the wide rim made it an easier switch. And he still sounds great.

ttf_blast · Post by **ttf_blast** » Sat Apr 15, 2006 8:45 am

It occurred to me the other day that even if I could reproduce my old Mt Vernon 1 1/2G perfectly, not a lot of people would buy a copy.
Why ?? It's harder to play than some other 1 1/2G size mouthpieces, and the qualities that I value in it may well not be found by many, especially younger players.
People want instant results. People want easy results.
It is possible to build these kind of things into a mouthpiece, to an extent, though you will always have to work at your low register more on a 1 1/2G sized mouthpiece than a modern monster. Work to make notes speak and to be flexible.... with the 1 1/2G the right sound comes free.
A friend of mine plays a cello worth $600,000...... why ? because he can find a difference, and others can hear that difference enough to back him in buying it for him (it's a good investment too, and often happens with top string players)
Would that instrument work for a 10 year old average player ? No, you need a very advanced technique to even get a reasonable result from it.... but if you have a great technique you can really make it sing. Now, that is an extreme example of how equipment can work.... this mouthpiece thread is about much more basic tools for music making, but thinking about it, a lot of players would just not see what this Mt Vernon 1 1/2G mouthpiece thing is all about if they tried one.
Finally, our principal trombone has just got a New York Bach 12C for his alto.
When I asked him what he thought, he said that he had always thought the old Bach stories were just hype..... but now he is a convert !
Chris Stearn

ttf_sshaplin · Post by **ttf_sshaplin** » Tue Apr 18, 2006 5:56 am

I presently play on a Bach 1 1/4GM. I started playing bass on a Conn 70H with a Bach 1 1/2 G mouthpiece. I used that mouthpiece up to a couple of years ago. Mine is a Vincent Bach 1 1/2G and I have never had the pleasure of trying a Mt. Vernon 1 1/2G.
I have a "wanted to buy" add on the classifieds for a Mt. Vernon 1 1/2G. I thought I would place a post here as well. Hopefully between the two sites I will get a bite on one.
Thanks
Sherwood

ttf_anonymous · Post by **ttf_anonymous** » Tue Apr 18, 2006 7:58 am

I sold my 1.5G last week!

I play a 2G now. But I'm not a real bass trombonist.

While at the local shop to buy a Rath S11 I tried a Rath B2. I found it took more air than the 2G (it seemed a tad bigger too) and didn't help me with the intonation. It made a nice sound, but I didn't get it.

ttf_blast · Post by **ttf_blast** » Tue Apr 18, 2006 3:46 pm

I was surprised to hear that the Rath intonation was worse, until I saw what bass you use. The Rath and that old Yamaha don't get along too well for tuning... especially up high. On most makes the Rath helps with intonation.
I also find that Yamaha mouthpieces do not like Rath trombones.
Can't win 'em all !
Chris Stearn.

ttf_anonymous · Post by **ttf_anonymous** » Wed Apr 19, 2006 7:14 am

Thanks for posting this, Chris. Some great discussion here. I've got a Wick 2AL that I mess around with some. I like the sound you get with that size mouthpiece. Less of an adjustment switching from my 5AL than something like a Yeo.

ttf_JohnL · Post by **ttf_JohnL** » Wed Apr 19, 2006 12:23 pm

Quote from: "blast"The Rath and that old Yamaha don't get along too well for tuning... especially up high. I also find that Yamaha mouthpieces do not like Rath trombones.
Do the folks at Rath have any theories as to why this is the case? Perhaps some incompatibility between backbore and leadpipe?

I can see it now - a special "Y-series" of mouthpieces and leadpipes specially designed to be compatible with Yamaha.

ttf_blast · Post by **ttf_blast** » Wed Apr 19, 2006 3:01 pm

It may well not be all Yamahas. That old single bass plays great down low, but goes haywire above F whatever you use. I remember that Douglas Yeo had some tuning issues with the R9 he tried, and that seemed odd... but with his mouthpiece the R9 becomes a little wayward. I don't know if tenors are the same.
If you want to make a perfect match mouthpiece, you would have to offer a different backbore for every make of trombone... it's just not practical.
It's not just about tapers... in fact the Mt Vernon 1 1/2G that I have works just fine in my Brown & Sharpe taper Conn 70H.... better, in fact than it does in the R9... at least for tuning. Leadpipes and mouthpieces react... Minick often sold a player one of his leadpipes along with his mouthpiece... a wise move as he really knew what he was doing and the pair would be awesome.
I have a Mt Vernon 1 1/2G that has a screw in shank and I will be trying various makers own spec. shanks/backbores in my research. I'll see what difference they make.
I'm now about a month into using the other Mt Vernon 1 1/2G... the REALLY good one... any regrets ?? No. Is it easy ?? No Is it worth the effort ??
YES !!!
Seduced by a sound difference that probably only I can hear... how sad is that ??
Chris Stearn.

ttf_slidejj · Post by **ttf_slidejj** » Fri Apr 28, 2006 10:52 am

Quote from: "blast"The Rath and that old Yamaha don't get along too well for tuning... especially up high. Chris Stearn.

I hadn't paid attenion to this thread for some time and just noticed the discussion going toward mouthpieces for a Yammie 321. I have a Wick 1AL that works well with it so I'm not surprised a 2G would work. The horn seems to like smaller, shallower cup mpcs. If I use my 0AL which I play on my double valve there are some intonation quirks, especially in the high range. I won't say the high range quirks don't exist with the 1AL but they're much easier to tame.

ttf_Mahlerbone · Post by **ttf_Mahlerbone** » Tue May 02, 2006 7:09 am

I've been playing a 1 1/2G sized mouthpiece for the past few weeks, and I just don't think it's going to cut it. I think the reason is that I've been playing bass basically full time for this time period, and now my chops are back in shape, so the Rath B 1 1/4W that I was on feels much better and sounds better in all ranges. So I think what I have to do is during periods when I'm not playing bass in bands too often, I still have to make the effort to just take it out and practice it every single day. That way I can handle the larger mouthpiece that I feel more comfortable on.

ttf_anonymous · Post by **ttf_anonymous** » Fri May 05, 2006 8:50 pm

I just had a high school student switch to bass trombone. I just got him a Faxx 1.5G. This was mostly a decision based on price and also that I heard that Faxx's are copies of the old Mt. Vernon Bach mps. Does anyone know if that is actually true? The mouthpiece sounds pretty good with my student, but I guess that I too consider it sort of a gateway size.

I think that the common notion is that bigger equals better. There's sort of a machismo aspect to it that you see in many other aspects of life. I think that rather than physical differences in progressive generations being the cause of this phenomenon towards bigger equipment that it is more likely that the change is psychological. There seems to be an ever increasing degree of competitiveness in modern society that fuels us to constantly try to out do each other. Making something "bigger" is the easiest way to at least create the illusion that it is better because it registers right away because it is a visual assessment. I think we can even be fooled by our visual sense as to what kind of sound we are actually getting on a particular mouthpiece or what it is doing for our playing.

The best way to try mouthpieces might prove to be totally blind where you have no idea of the weight, design, or size of each piece. That might be an interesting experiment. Has anyone tried this? I guess it would mean having someone swapping the different choices out for you.

ttf_DogBone35 · Post by **ttf_DogBone35** » Fri May 05, 2006 9:20 pm

Quote from: "brian7599"The best way to try mouthpieces might prove to be totally blind where you have no idea of the weight, design, or size of each piece. That might be an interesting experiment. Has anyone tried this? I guess it would mean having someone swapping the different choices out for you.

Well, it would be hard to be totally blind, because you lips can feel size differences -- although what they feel does not always exactly correspond to the numbered size scale. So it would be a partially blind test.

ttf_bassbone4sissies · Fri May 05, 2006 9:35 pm

But, as it's said, some mouthpieces feel bigger when their rim siz is 27mm. But a different mouthpiece with a 27mm rim feels small.

It depends on how the different mouthpieces are made. So, they can be the same size technically but feel completely different.

But, a 1G to a 1.5G, is pretty obvious in feel.

ttf_bassclef · Post by **ttf_bassclef** » Tue May 09, 2006 12:49 pm

Quote from: "bassbone4sissies"But, as it's said, some mouthpieces feel bigger when their rim siz is 27mm. But a different mouthpiece with a 27mm rim feels small.

you're right. i find that the bite shape has a lot to do with this. for example, i moved from a schilke 59 to a laskey 85md which both have an advertised width of 28.5mm, but the laskey feels a bit smaller on the face due to the sharper bite.

also, if you had a set of extremely precise calipers, you'd find that various measurements of mouthpieces are often not exactly what they are advertised to be. though we're talking fractions of millimeters here, the difference can often be felt and heard.

ttf_puma · Post by **ttf_puma** » Tue May 09, 2006 1:10 pm

I just used a Kelly 1-1/2 to play the 3rd part in Mahler's 3rd Symphony during the "low" sections. It's much easier than bringing in a bass trombone in addition to the tenor!

ttf_fsgazda · Post by **ttf_fsgazda** » Sat May 20, 2006 9:28 pm

A few months ago I brought in a bunch of mouthpieces for my students to try, so they could start to get an idea of what works best for them many of them played what came with their horn, and had never tried other options (kind of refreshing in a way, no one searchg for a magic bullet). After a lot of play testing, and blind listening tests, some picked new pieces, some stayed with what they had.

One fairly advanced bass trombonist had been playing a Shilke 59 since switching to bass a few years ago. His former teacher told him to get it, he had never tried anything else. In the 1.5 years that I worked with him, I suspected that it wasn't a great match for him, and wanted to hear him on some other options.

After trying several different mouthpieces out, I felt there was no contest, he sounded best on the 1.5G. Much more security in the upper register, much more clarity, and a quality low sound. Maybe smaller, but with more center. I pushed the 1.5G hard, but I believe in giving the students as much information and feedback as I can (we also had a number of other students listen in a blind test), but they have to make their own decisions. At the end of 2 weeks of trying the 3 finalists out, he picked a 1.25G. He sounds better than on the 59 (more eveness and clarity), but still struggles in the high range. I told him that I feel the high sacrifice is not worth the low gains, and that he will have to spend a lot more time practicing in the upper register to play the 1.25 well, but he feels that it's worth his perception of the sound (we also recorded him and did blind play backs). We'll see where it all winds up. Maybe he'll follow my path and move progressively smaller as the years go on.

The point? Even recorded and live feedback from myself and peers wasn't enough to sway a talented student into a smaller mouthpiece. Self perception is tough to get around, I guess.

Frank Gazda

ttf_anonymous · Post by **ttf_anonymous** » Sat May 20, 2006 9:56 pm

I tell you one reason why I play a certain sized mouthpiece that does not go below a Bach 1Gish cup depth. My car accident took half of my right lund, and damaged my left lung badly, therefore, I compensate for the loss in air support etc. I dont want to go into logistics of what I should'a,could'a do, but, I will say, that my teacher has agreed that this is very helpful to me, otherwise, if I went lower in depth size, I would sound like a woofy tenor, but, thats not the case for me. Its what can work for you. I know if I played a Benge 290 with my Bach Megatone 1G....I would feel fantastic on it, as I do when I play the megatone on my 3062AF, but, thats a different story. I know there are people out there such as Bob Hughes that can play on a 2Gish mouthpiece and sound AMAZING on it, but, I can't. Ok....I am done on this subject, Ill rant on something else. Tata.

ttf_MikeBassBone · Post by **ttf_MikeBassBone** » Sat May 20, 2006 10:05 pm

I was once told that to sound good on a 1.5 you have to work half as hard as you do when you are playing a 1.

Now I guess some people would frown on a statement like that, but if a smaller piece is more efficient, then why not?

My philosophy still stands as: There is no bigger/smaller is better/worse. What works is best. too obvious?

ttf_blast · Post by **ttf_blast** » Sun May 21, 2006 5:23 am

Derek..... this is not an attempt to get everybody that plays bass trombone to use a 1 1/2G..... it's a discussion about the merits of a piece of equipment that is drifting towards use as a 'beginner bass' mouthpiece, but was a mere 30 years ago, considered to be about the best mouthpiece for the job... for any kind of music. When I was your age, I thought I had 'outgrown' the Bach 1 1/2G and was searching for the magic monster mouthpiece, that would help in my masterplan to set the world alight with my astonishing bass trombone playing......well... all these years later, the world has failed to ignite, I'm back on a 1 1/2G and enjoying music more than ever, even though it is obvious that I am not the greatest bass trombone player in the world... whatever that might be. The black and white world of youth changes to ever more interesting greys..... what IS best, greatest etc. All depends on how you see things... who you are, where you are.
What I find interesting about this mouthpiece, is that in revisiting it all these years later, I find that I had only scratched the surface of what it can let me do when I dismissed it in my youthful search for the 'wonder mouthpiece'.
Please note that I said 'can let me do' not what 'it' does. A mouthpiece does nothing. The player does everything. Some mouthpieces allow more things to happen than others. Some mouthpieces allow better things to happen than others. Lots of players. Lots of concepts. Lots of mouthpieces.
Enjoy your journey Derek, just like I and many others have.
Chris Stearn.

ttf_anonymous · Post by **ttf_anonymous** » Mon May 22, 2006 5:17 am

I've still got my old Bach 1 1/2G after all these years. Looking a bit tired these days but never misses a beat... well.... it doesn't.... but I sometimes do

Cul

ttf_bassclef · Post by **ttf_bassclef** » Mon May 22, 2006 3:14 pm

Quote from: "Mikebassbone"I was once told that to sound good on a 1.5 you have to work half as hard as you do when you are playing a 1.

Now I guess some people would frown on a statement like that, but if a smaller piece is more efficient, then why not?

i think you were told about right.

but, learning not to work as hard is damn hard work for some, myself included.

it can take years sometimes.

when going from bigger to smaller, in my experience, there is a universe of adjustments that need to be made, large or small as they may be, to your embouchure and airstream in order effectively play a mouthpiece that is not only smaller in cup width but especially smaller/tighter in the throat/backbore area.

your sound concept will probably need to change, but that may a driving force behind the mouthpiece switch to begin with.

your method of moving and controlling your airstream will defintely need to be changed, so the air won't bottleneck inside the mouthpiece and you won't constantly be overblowing.

your initial embouchure formation/structure and any shifts/changes in lip tension throughout your range may also require alteration.

as always, there will be some trade-offs. for example, you may need to accept the fact that you can't cut people off at the knees with a ffff pedal c anymore. but as fun as that can seem, when is it really musically necessary or appropriate to do so? ok,ok....once in the lion king bass bone/tuba book...

basically, it seems more of a finesse rather than a pure muscle approach must be adapted.

you don't need to turn the wheel as much on your ferarri (ex. 1.5g) as you do on your 70's cadillac land yacht (ex. schilke 60) to make the turn.

less seems to be more all around when acclimating to smaller equipment.

that can be quite hard to grasp at first and old habits die awfully hard don't they?

that, and i've found muscling your way around inside of smaller, more effecient equipment can get downright painful sometimes too.

i guess all that was my personal attempt to use my experience answer your question, mike.

i hope i made a bit of sense.

ttf_blast · Post by **ttf_blast** » Mon May 22, 2006 3:42 pm

Good point, bassclef. I've noticed that modern American bass trombonists using large mouthpieces adopt a whole different approach to embouchure formation, than the more traditional players.... almost a trumpet type embouchure, to get the brightness, definition and focus needed to get the results on such equipment.
Chris Stearn.

ttf_Gabe Langfur · Post by **ttf_Gabe Langfur** » Tue May 23, 2006 9:55 am

Quote from: "blast"Good point, bassclef. I've noticed that modern American bass trombonists using large mouthpieces adopt a whole different approach to embouchure formation, than the more traditional players.... almost a trumpet type embouchure, to get the brightness, definition and focus needed to get the results on such equipment.
Chris Stearn.

Hmm...interesting. Chris, could you elaborate on that?

ttf_MikeBassBone · Post by **ttf_MikeBassBone** » Tue May 23, 2006 10:35 am

I got that comment when I was only trying a 1.5G (greg black). I am now back to the 1¼G size, and I am probably going to stay there, I started on a 59, went to a Bach 1¼G, and now I play a Ferguson L and see no reason to change.

ttf_anonymous · Post by **ttf_anonymous** » Tue May 23, 2006 10:52 am

I think I get what Chris is saying.

Playing on tenor for a long time before switching to bass as my primary, I know I went through am embrochure "shift" to get clarity on the bass. On tenor, I kept a larger aperture to play and it worked fine for me for years. But I was finding this same facial setup wasn't working when I doubled on bass.

I found I had to shrink my aperture a lot more to get the same focused sound that I had on tenor. I was just too wide open in the middle of my chops, and as a result I was getting a fuzzy sound in softer dnamics.

I did a lot of buzzing on my trumpet mouthpiece to help with decreasing the area on my lips that I was buzzing with. It took me some time to find the right balance of lip and air, but eventually I hit pay dirt. I use a few select exercises out of the Caruso book daily to help reinforce my embrochure.

I found that I had to make this embrochure shift when moving into the 59/1 1/4G size range of mouthpieces. Anything smaller, and my "tenor" setup works better. I found if I tried to use the same tight embrochure on the smaller bass trombone/large tenor mouthpieces, I tend to get too bright a sound.

Sounds weird.

ttf_blast · Post by **ttf_blast** » Tue May 23, 2006 3:26 pm

OK Gabe, I'll try to go into a little more detail. My comment is based on how I adapted myself when on large mouthpieces, and then observing lots of players at the ITF last year. In the early days of trying large mouthpieces (well, the Schilke 60 actually) my sound became very 'woofy' ... tubby down low, and thin up top. As I tried to get the sound that I wanted, I found that I set my lips more toward the sort of shape that I used when I played trumpet for kids in lessons..... not the same... just a move in that direction. This happened over a period of time quite naturally as I worked toward that sound concept.
A lot of people in the UK who try big mouthpieces do not make this transition, and sound very tuba-like.... but I noticed in New Orleans that the sound I expected to come out of some of the mega mouthpieces did not.... players were making rich but focussed sounds of good quality..... yourself as a prime example.
I have to say that I have to work much less hard and am happier with the tonal results since switching back to the 1 1/2G size, but that is part of an equation that is based on professional orchestra playing in the UK, so I cannot say that it would hold good for all situations.
Chris Stearn.

ttf_blast · Post by **ttf_blast** » Tue May 23, 2006 3:28 pm

Beau, you posted while I was writing my last one. What you say is spot on.
Chris Stearn.

ttf_fsgazda · Post by **ttf_fsgazda** » Tue May 23, 2006 4:45 pm

Who was it that said " Play the smallest equipment that you can get away with" or something like that?

I've adopted the concept of play smaller equipment, and play big on it, feeling that (as Chris said), playing big equipment forces you to play small on it.

Disclaimer: my Elliot 112, K, K8 is a larger mouthpiece than the 1.5G, but quite a bit smaller than what a lot of American players use. I also play a Shires 1 leadpipe, and B tuning slide, essentially the tightest setup that I can get.

Frank Gazda

ttf_bassbone4sissies · Wed May 24, 2006 9:24 pm

Quote from: "fsgazda"Who was it that said " Play the smallest equipment that you can get away with" or something like that?

I've adopted the concept of play smaller equipment, and play big on it, feeling that (as Chris said), playing big equipment forces you to play small on it.

Disclaimer: my Elliot 112, K, K8 is a larger mouthpiece than the 1.5G, but quite a bit smaller than what a lot of American players use. I also play a Shires 1 leadpipe, and B tuning slide, essentially the tightest setup that I can get.

Frank Gazda

I believe it was Arnold Jacobs who said, "Play the largest mouthpiece you can without sacrificing sound."

ttf_anonymous · Post by **ttf_anonymous** » Wed May 24, 2006 9:27 pm

I dont think so.......I may be wrong.......but....I believe there was a guy in California that did a class that mentioned that phrase.......again....I could be wrong.

ttf_Dan Satterwhite · Post by **ttf_Dan Satterwhite** » Wed May 24, 2006 9:27 pm

Arnold Jacobs played a relatively small mouthpiece. I heard Sam Pilafian say, "Play the smallest mouthpiece you can stand." Makes much more sense.

ttf_anonymous · Post by **ttf_anonymous** » Wed May 31, 2006 2:33 pm

I play a Conn 1.5G

ttf_blast · Post by **ttf_blast** » Wed May 31, 2006 4:01 pm

Quote from: "UWPBassBone"I play a Conn 1.5G

Going back to my opening.... I hope you are in your right mind.
I hope I am.
I also hope that the sound that I found so amazing all those years ago continues to be the sound of the bass trombone... not this 'tuba-on-a-stick' quality that I hear sometimes.
Sounds need to be interesting.... REALLY interesting... to make a difference.
Miles Davis playing long notes with a mute in.... REALLY interesting.
Chris Stearn.

ttf_anonymous · Post by **ttf_anonymous** » Wed May 31, 2006 7:23 pm

Oddly enough I played in my last school band concert tonight and I had yet another one of these "smaller is better" stories. I've been playing a Laskey 85MD for a while now, but for this gig I was playing tenor parts in two ensembles and bass in two other. After struggling to keep up on the Laskey I finally said to hell with it and stuck in my Schilke M5.1 (thanks again Jeremy!) and voila! Much easier. Ended up playing the whole concert on that piece, and was surprised at how well it responded down low. I figured, huh, why am I playing something so big all the time when I don't need that much? So I get home and pop in my 1 1/2G, and everything is easier and more focused than the Laskey, it almost feels like I'm cheating. Go figure.

ttf_blast · Post by **ttf_blast** » Thu Jun 01, 2006 12:21 am

It's not cheating.... you WILL have to work much harder to get a really good lower register on the 1 1/2G..... but you can now see the 'price' of an instant low register.... and the Laskey is considered small by many.
Chris Stearn.

ttf_Sinfonia98 · Post by **ttf_Sinfonia98** » Thu Jun 01, 2006 8:29 am

Isn't the 85MD already close tot he size of a 1 1/2G?

ttf_MikeBassBone · Post by **ttf_MikeBassBone** » Thu Jun 01, 2006 8:37 am

Quote from: "Sinfonia98"Isn't the 85MD already close tot he size of a 1 1/2G?

I would think that it would be more of a 1¼G size but since I have never put one to my face, I can't really say thats true.

ttf_Gabe Langfur · Post by **ttf_Gabe Langfur** » Thu Jun 01, 2006 10:50 am

The specs put it at a Schilke 59 - comparable if a little bigger than a 1 1/4 G.

ttf_anonymous · Post by **ttf_anonymous** » Thu Jun 01, 2006 10:59 am

I play a Schilke 59 on my brand new Getzen 1062FD !!
And I love it !!!

ttf_anonymous · Post by **ttf_anonymous** » Thu Jun 01, 2006 12:10 pm

Quote from: "Sinfonia98"Isn't the 85MD already close tot he size of a 1 1/2G?

That's actually why I got the mouthpiece in the first place, as I didn't want to go too much bigger. Having played a Schilke 59 as well, however, I'd say they are quite comparable. Most people say the Laskey is brighter, which I found true to an extent.

Quote from: "blast"It's not cheating.... you WILL have to work much harder to get a really good lower register on the 1 1/2G..... but you can now see the 'price' of an instant low register.

You see, that's one of the things I like most about it. I have to concentrate on keeping my air focused in the valve register, almost like blowing into a single point in the back of the mouthpiece, and that seems like it should be good for my playing anyways. The larger pieces seem let you get a little sloppy down there.

ttf_bigbells · Post by **ttf_bigbells** » Mon Jun 19, 2006 8:31 pm

Quote from: "blast"Good point, bassclef. I've noticed that modern American bass trombonists using large mouthpieces adopt a whole different approach to embouchure formation, than the more traditional players.... almost a trumpet type embouchure, to get the brightness, definition and focus needed to get the results on such equipment.
Chris Stearn.I'm not a bass bonist. I sold an Olds Opera to a pro, who was getting it for one of his students. I told him how difficult I found it to play, and how quickly it used my breath even though I was using a 5G mouthpiece. He told me that contrary to what might seem logical, I could achieve greater success by closing my embouchure more than I would with a large-bore tenor. This advice proved very useful, and carried over into my symphonic tenor playing.

ttf_anonymous · Post by **ttf_anonymous** » Mon Jun 19, 2006 10:37 pm

I play a Monnette prana BT1 which is an absolute monster compared to a 1 1/2G, but I find it works best in my Shires Bass with a B1 leadpipe, good range compact, lots of core and it sounds good soft or loud and is very fairly easy to play. I have tried other setups including Schilke 59 and a Doug Elliott 114 M M8. These are both are easier to play but there is just something about the sound of the Monette that makes the extra effort worthwhile, but only with the smaller lead pipe, it does become a bit tubby and takes a stupid amount of air with the B2 or B3. The B3 allows for an amazing amount of power, but it's too much even for a brass band.

ttf_anonymous · Post by **ttf_anonymous** » Sat Jul 01, 2006 11:31 am

This has been a very interesting discussion. But it has made me chuckle, though. As a primarily tenor player on a 7C, I don't find a 1 1/2G "small"

I have a Getzen 1 1/2G, a Markie 3 and, being a gadget freak, bought one of those Titanovation pieces (a 71 I think -- about a Bach 2G size). They all feel like tubs. I play the Titanovation primarily now because the titanium doesn't give me the feeling of sticking to my lips, which silver plating does, and which has been an annoyance ever since I took up playing again a few years ago.

Anyway, I have to do the focused, "trumpet embouchure" thing on any of those pieces just to keep notes in the middle register from breaking up, which is probably telling me that I need to practice more in general. But if I had a choice, I'd go smaller before larger. I'm not playing in a symphony or anything, and it just feels more comfortable to me.

ttf_anonymous · Post by **ttf_anonymous** » Sat Jul 01, 2006 11:40 am

Oooh, someone who owns their own contra...

What do you play on that?

ttf_blast · Post by **ttf_blast** » Sat Jul 01, 2006 2:32 pm

Quote from: "Bob1062"Oooh, someone who owns their own contra...

What do you play on that?

What ???????

Instant threadjack ????

Chris Stearn.

ttf_Dave Tatro · Post by **ttf_Dave Tatro** » Sat Jul 01, 2006 2:57 pm

Back to the topic at hand....

I have a Bach 1 1/2G that I pop into my Bach 42BOG every once in awhile to play bass parts on. It actually sounds great on the 42, kind of a tenor/bass sound. I used it last night for a big band gig and it worked great, except for a few low B's! (Not the mp's fault.)

ttf_anonymous · Post by **ttf_anonymous** » Sat Jul 01, 2006 4:08 pm

Quote from: "blast"Quote from: "Bob1062"Oooh, someone who owns their own contra...

What do you play on that?

What ???????

Instant threadjack ????

Chris Stearn.

I was actually curious whether there is some type of equivalency (making up words on the spur of the moment=

, ok fine... correlation), between what bass players play on bass and what they play on contra.
What is the (F and Bb) contra counterpart to a 1.5G? 3G? Schilke 61?

To further legitamize my post, I find larger mouthpieces so much more comfortable. The 3G-ish on my euphonium is murder, I should never have got it. Oddly, the 6.5 on my little King is no problem. When I started bass, I of course played on the mp that came with it, a 1.5G. I only got my 60 as an experiment. After about a week, the narrow rim didn't bother me anymore.

It feels like I am sitting in a large comfortable chair, as opposed to a small folding chair

. Someone please quote me.

I am now interested in the JK contra mouthpieces, when I get some spare money...

ttf_blast · Post by **ttf_blast** » Sat Jul 01, 2006 5:03 pm

The whole point is that the mouthpiece should relate to the instrument.
I use a 1 1/2G on bass but a mouthpiece larger than any bass piece on contra.
Keith McNichol at Covent Garden uses a 2G on bass and a large Thein on contra.
I started this thread because the 1 1/2G size on bass trombone seemed to be an endangered species. I have seen much recently that makes me think otherwise.... which from my point of view is good. It is not just about pure size though.... it is about quality of design.... an element much overlooked.
This is not a thread about what you use (goodness knows, there are enough of them) it's about how and why you use, what you use.
Summer thinkfest ????
Chris Stearn.

ttf_Fuzzy · Post by **ttf_Fuzzy** » Sat Jul 01, 2006 6:59 pm

I play a 1.5G and really I plan on staying on a 1.5G for a very long time, why, because it bites.

I was thinking of going bigger, but something my teacher said really got me, 'you get all these bass bones in a big band, with too big mpiece who make this big mush at the bottom that doesent speak clearly through the band"

I just relaised how great my 1.5 is, I tried a 1 and some other buckets, and yes you can hit pedal Ebs easy, but it was a mush, it didnt have a bright bite, that growl that I want for big band.

I, in my right mind would and I think for a very long time play a 1.5