screamingmorris

A Bach 1C is not the same relative depth for everybody.
If one player's lips do not protrude into the cup very far, then the Bach 1C will seem fairly deep and the upper register will be a challenge with that mouthpiece.
If another player's lips protrude into the cup a lot so that the player's lips almost bottom out, then the Bach 1C will seem very shallow and the upper register will be relatively easy with that mouthpiece.

The point is *not* that a player with X lips should always play with a Y mouthpiece rather than a Z mouthpiece.
The point is that players with different lips will need to play different mouthpieces in order to achieve the same tone for blending together.
That players with different lips will need to play different mouthpieces in order to achieve the same range.
For example, in general, an upstream player on a Bach 7C might sound like a downstream player on a Bach 7D in terms of both tone and range.
But that does not change the fact that in general shallower cups aid in playing the upper register.
Could the player you cite play lead trumpet just as well with a Bach 1 rather than a Bach 1C? No, because the shallower Bach 1C helps the upper register more.

The statements made in the Bach catalogue and in the Schilke catalogue are generalities which are true.
Each player does indeed need to take into account many variables in choosing his mouthpiece, with lip thickness and cup depth being just 2 of those many vaiables.
Contrary to what you are implying, the Bach catalogue does not dictate that a person with certain lip type must or should play with a certain cup depth, only that certain cup depths could aid certain goals in playing if the player wants to avail himself of such aid.
It is up to the individual player to decide whether he wants to avail himself of such aid by using any particular mouthpiece.

- morris

rowuk

Morris,
while your posts are interesting, all of those references leave out some very important things - the size of the lips when not playing has little to do with the size "compressed" or rolled in when playing. The strength of the embouchure or placement of the tongue are NOT dealt with.
It makes no sense to rant about size and shape because there are too many exceptions to the rules.

When I state that regardless of the mouthpiece that I regularly use, I have no additional range, that does not make me exceptional or an idiot! That is the reality that I face every time that I pick up the horn. A player that switches mouthpieces still only has one "embouchure". That is why the switch does not aid RANGE but does change the tone substantially.

For players that only play lead, a different set of variables apply.

Range is possible with MANY different approaches.
High compression: High notes are produced because the vibrating surface is of higher density, thus raising the resonant frequency! This can be accomplished by a powerful embouchure capable of "compacting" the lip tissue or by a combination of shallow mouthpiece with the corresponding breath support to compact the lip tissue by the back pressure in front of the lip and the high pressure air support behind it.
High tension: (stretching or applying extreme pressure to the lip to raise the resonant frequency. This can be compared to tightening the string on a violin. Not recommended for brass players because the stretched lip is more easily damaged!)

The mouthpiece can only AID the embouchure. It must complement the muscle structure and breathing habits.

Maynard is actually a very good example of a player that maintained his range regardless of which mouthpiece that he used. His range is possible on a 1C, a different combination for "compression" could be required however.

Morris, your posts show that you have been in the business a while. Mouthpiece theories throughout the centuries have been proven to be less reliable than weather reports. Why you feel the need to cite Bach or Schilke - what point does it prove? Absolutely none.
We have all shapes and sizes of horns and mouthpieces being successfully used by all types of players. There is no formula for success - the Bach and Schilke catalogues provide only "standard" solutions for "standard" players. The problem is, we are all very special!

Just lighten up a bit. You have a wealth of knowledge usefull to us all!

__________________
Whenever I feel blue, I start breathing again.

screamingmorris

"the size of the lips when not playing has little to do with the size "compressed" or rolled in when playing"
Wrong, a fleshy lower lip has tendency to protrude into the cup a little bit more than a less-fleshy upper lip, because no matter how much muscular development you have there the fleshy lip will remain fleshy even when those muscles are tensed.
If I have a fat beer belly, that fat beer belly will protrude even when the muscles beneath it are well-developed.
And a fleshy lip which only protrudes an extra 1/32 of an inch into a cup reduces the relative cup depth by one letter, such as from a Bach 7C to a Bach 7D.
By the way, in Reinhardt terms I am referring to the anchor lip rather than to the other lip which rolls under the anchor lip (I am upstream, so my less-fleshy upper lip rolls under my more-fleshy lower lip so that it is the more-fleshy lower lip which does the more protruding into the cup).

The other poster was slandering Vincent Bach and mocking him without offering even one quote from Bach or offering anything to rebut Bach.
Why didn't you tell him to "lighten up"?
Since when is it OK to slander and mock someone but it is wrong to defend the person being slandered and mocked?

And I myself already said that there are many other variables besides lip thickness and cup depth which also affect a person's range.

And you said that a shallower mouthpiece does not give one iota better endurance in the upper register, which contradicts what most professional trumpeters have been publicly saying for many years.

"The mouthpiece can only AID the embouchure."
I already said that per physics a mouthpiece depth can either complement or adversely affect a player's chosen range.
No mouthpiece will give a player a Double C.
Bit some cup depths will make the Double C easier while other cup depths will make the Double C more difficult.

"Why you feel the need to cite Bach or Schilke - what point does it prove? Absolutely none."
I quoted 2 authorities who regarding that specific subject agreed with all major authorities on the subject: shallower mouthpieces make upper range easier.
You and the other poster have not offered even one quote from any authorities at all, you have merely expressed your own unsubstantiated personal opinions which contradict the statememts of such known authorities.
So I would re-phrase your statement:
"Why you feel the need to cite your unsubstantiated personal opinion- what point does it prove? Absolutely none."

- morris

Schwab

The "other poster" I think you are referring to IS the authority. Do you know of Wilmer Wise?

__________________
Dylan Schwab
Stage 1 New York

wiseone2

slander

A type of defamation. Slander is an untruthful oral (spoken) statement about a person that harms the person's reputation or standing in the community. Because slander is a tort (a civil wrong), the injured person can bring a lawsuit against the person who made the false statement. If the statement is made via broadcast media -- for example, over the radio or on TV -- it is considered libel, rather than slander, because the statement has the potential to reach a very wide audience.

Screaming Morris sounds very much like Dr Michael Missiras.
How about giving us your real name Mr.Morris?

Wilmer

__________________
Be sure Brain is engaged before putting Mouthpiece in gear.
S.Suark 1951

screamingmorris

If Bach and Schilke are old-timers whose beliefs regardings the aerodynamic design of trumpets and mouthpieces are now obsolete and worthy of ridicule,
then why are the vintage trumpets and vintage mouthpieces that were personally designed and built by those 2 men still regarded as items of utmost quality and design that still command top prices?
If Bach didn't know what he was doing, then why are his vintage mouthpieces from 50 years ago selling for $200-$300, far more than new Bach mouthpieces that are "modern" design?
If Bach's mouthpiece theories have been disproven, then we should be throwing those "worthless" vintage Bach mouthpieces in the trash and buying the new Bach mouthpieces instead.
And those "worthless" vintage trumpets personally designed and built by Bach and Schilke should also be thrown into the trash since those trumpets were based on designs that "have been proven to be less reliable than weather reports".

[How dare I cite the opinions of Vincent Bach and Renold Schilke when you cite the opinions of ... you ]

- morris

wiseone2

This was the original post, It has gone far afield.

__________________
Be sure Brain is engaged before putting Mouthpiece in gear.
S.Suark 1951

Hardnut

Quite.

__________________
Haydn wrote a Trumpet Concerto?

Schwab

I think everything that is useful on the topic has already been said. Thanks everyone, good stuff!

__________________
Dylan Schwab
Stage 1 New York

rowuk

More Screaming than Morris,
If you would just get off of your horse for a couple minutes you would see that this is not an issue of Bach and Schilke versus the rest of the world, but nobody having the key to the whole truth.

If Bach and Schilke had all of the answers, no other mouthpiece makers would be able to sell any quantities or offer their own technologies.

You take my posts out of context and as that has been obvious to enough other TMers, I will refrain from further comment.

I will try one more time to clear this up - just for you.
If I only play one mouthpiece, a more shallow mouthpiece COULD help in the high register, a large mouthpiece could help get a bigger sound. These are generalities that no professional would argue with.
When we switch mouthpieces on a regular basis (a situation not covered in any of Bachs or Schilkes literature) the shallower piece does not help to get more notes. It changes the character of the sound and that CAN make our job easier. To get higher notes, I have to change my embouchure too.

As we are all different, mouthpiece design has many hundreds of parameters that can be balanced against one another to complement a players embouchure. Lead players use everything from a 1C to a 10 1/2 E successfully, regardless of what Bach or Schilke print. Timofei Dokshizer used a 7E and still had a huge classical sound.

Ther is no reason to get hung up with 30 year old literature. The book has not been rewritten, but appended to in very serious ways.

I respect the work of Bach and Schilke but find it ignorant to assume if they were still alive, that they would not have been capable of further development and fine tuning their products (and the 30 year old playing descriptions)! Just because they died does not stop evolution OR give us a reason to put a shrine around older technology. When it works, fine. When you have something better, great. How do we tell the difference? With an open mind and ears, without prejudice and preconception.

If you want to establish yourself as an authority on mouthpiece design and use, nobody at TM has a problem with that. If your method is rant, it could be tough getting any acceptance. If no other opinions/experiences are acceptable to you, good luck!

I used to switch between the Bach 1 1/4C and 10 1/2E, Schilke 18 and 14A4A and now a Monette B2/B4L and BL quite often in the same concert. No additional range, but a lot of available colors.

Robin

if Wilmer is right, this is what Dr. Missiras says about himself on TH:

"Don't worry, I'm not making it up, but i do tend to write in a post-structualist/revisonist style. Its all the rage in academe and for me it pays the bills. Its probably why people get mad at me. i pose arguments that are either circular (impossible to defend your postion); confromtational (impossble to defend you postion unless you well versed in subject mater) or some times I pull my "just folks" routine which I think really drives people crazy.

Nothing new, nothing particually original, just my way. i went to school far too long. Here's something if you want to read: Any primary book by J. Derida, the grate, late French post-structurlaist.

I also have a terrible penchant for mispelling which I no drives people crazy but as i said, this is not an academjic journal, its a chat site, or wahtever they call them. "

A shame that someone can only get the attention that they feel that they deserve by being obnoxious!

__________________
Whenever I feel blue, I start breathing again.