Interesting indeed, but this seems to be an old story only being published now. Brian Curry, mentioned in the second paragraph from the end has already launched a series of these reproduction mouthpieces several months ago through his company getasax.com.

GS Mouthpieces | www.GetASax.com

www.getasax.com

It is interesting to read the story behind it though. Thanks!

 

I think there are several companies doing this now. RS Berekely, for examples, markets a whole series of "Legends" mouthpieces reputed to be "exact copies" of pieces used by Getz, Bird, Benny Goodman, and others. The Chris Potter mouthpiece in that series is such an exact copy that it includes Chris' teeth marks!

It's still an interesting read, though, and it's great that it concludes by noting that a saxophonist's sound involves a complex interaction between physiology, embouchure, manipulation of the tongue and larynx, and dozens of other complicated factors that can't be boiled down to computer data. In other words, having Coltrane's mouthpiece won't make you sound like Trane. Which something people around here have been saying for a long time.

 

Coltrane was known to have a great many mouthpieces, so I find it amusing that they focus on the minutiae of replicating just one. It's cute that they hold such high tolerances for duplicating mouthpieces that had so much variation in production. Do they realize that the are using laser technology and hi-res CAM on parts that were finished by hand?

 

Indeed, he was certainly one who contributed to the many mouthpieces idea.

the X ray technology allows a direct information to 3D printers and I know from well informed source that they are now not only printing in metal but is steel .

the idea of reproducing a set up and therefor e the sound is absolutely preposterous, the most important part, the player, is not there. Many play with similar set up and play differently.

 

Fascinating stuff indeed. A complex process for selling goodies to folks.

 

Not dissing Coltrane -- he was a genius -- but I've never understood what people hear in his soprano tone. To me it sounds dull & uninflected: the tone of a player whose true voice is a larger sax. (Bear in mind that my soprano sax tone god is Sidney Bechet, whose piercing tone & wide vibrato might be considered over-the-top by some.)

Maybe I haven't heard the right Coltrane recordings; maybe I'm listening in the wrong frequencies. I'm hoping somebody here can educate my ear, in a kind & supportive way.

 

I think that what you hear as dull and uninflected I hear as an emotive tone around a hollow core which gives it great expression. Hollow probably isn’t the best term but it’s as close as I can get to describing what I hear, it’s a kind of longing tone at the heart. I hear the same in his tenor sound. If you are looking for Bechet type tone then it’s almost bound to disappoint. I don’t care for the sound of sopranos generally but for me Coltrane and Shorter are the two sop players I can happily listen to and to me they both have that at the centre of their sound.

 

Seemed like they would have picked a guy with a great sound. Coltrane had an awful, strident tone that was perfectly suited to his self-described 'hate music'.

 

There were many sides to Coltrane's playing. Here is one where his sound is both beautiful and expressive to my ears.

 

There's always gotta be one hater when Coltrane's name pops up. Like clockwork. Very tiresome.

My question is, "which Coltrane?" Maybe there is a case for copying the 5* Link he used in the late 50's, but after that Coltrane extensively modified his mouthpieces, used multiple mouthpieces (I believe a Selmer soloist somewhere in there), changed tip openings, changed his whole sound. I think Coltrane sounds amazing on "Interstellar Space" and amazing on "Kind of Blue" but it's not the same sound.

There are now plenty of replica mouthpieces but ultimately you have to work with your own embouchure. I'm glad they exist because they DO help - if your concept is David Sanborn, having the same mouthpiece makes getting that sound possible and much easier (you're never gonna get that out of a Brilhart or Meyer). That said I think it's important to realize mouthpieces are not magic.

 

There's always some mug who will buy gear that has a name attached to it, thinking that they will then "somehow" become that player...or at least have their sound. Keep wishing while others keep taking your $$.

For what little it's worth I'm with sopsax in not hearing anything worth imitating in Coltrane's "sound". Great technician, but tone/sound? Played 20+ cents sharp much of the time, and to my ears had little/no warmth. Cool some would say...to me just cold.

 

Wow, I can't believe what I'm hearing. Are we talking strictly soprano? Certainly Trane had different periods with different sounds but some of his most famous work features what I would call dark, resonant, polished, gorgeous tone - on tenor, anyway.

Here's my personal favorite from 1957:

Also I have a hard time crediting the idea that Coltrane's music was "hate music." I mean...A Love Supreme for crying out loud. Please give me a source if that's a real thing.

Lastly, and actually on topic, getting super accurate replicas of mouthpieces might actually be a good thing for GAS - as in, now it removes all doubt that it's not the mouthpiece but your skills.

 

I've read the article in the OP and

1. The soprano playing of Coltrane is not mentioned. In fact, even the soprano saxophone is not mentioned.

2. Coltrane himself is mentioned tangentially. It is certainly not an article about Coltrane's sound, mentioning him is only a rhetorical device.

3. The articles is also not about replicas for their own sake. The real goal of the scientists who make this study is to try to correlate the various shapes of mouthpieces with the varieties of sound.

Now, of course, the posters are free to discuss what they want...

 

My first thought in reading about scanning and duplicating mouthpieces of famous players was, Are they scanning and duplicating the players thoracic and oral cavities too?

Indeed, a conclusion fo the article says,

The intangible alchemy at work in the interaction between a player's technique and anatomy and the instrument itself is a mystery still left to unravel.

The way a player adjusts their vocal tracts, or positions their tongue and holds their lips -- "all of these contribute in ways that are almost impossible to analyze from a purely physical point of view," Socolar said.

I have been thinking a lot about how I affect my own tone, intonation, et al. lately, and I have been experimenting with what I can and cannot consciously change. I have been told several times about listening to other artists and creating my own sound concept. I have been assured that over time, subtle things will change to help move closer to that sound concept. The things that change regarding producing our sound concept are not so conscious, I think.

 

I read the article, it reminds me a lot of what SYOS does. I do think it's pretty basic if it just sticks to vintage. Modern makers, like Jodyjazz, Wanne, and others have really created new designs, not variations of the old classics. That said, anything that helps our understanding of mouthpieces. It seems to me that for many decades it was a very trial and error thing. Nowadays it's a refined craft.

This sort of stuff is making it a science, which is the next step. I think some refacers understand facing curves and other aspects on this sort of level, but I am not sure there is any sort of book of all this knowledge.

 

You guys are funny. To me Coltrane had a very well-developed soprano sound. It is dark, warm, and expressive. I suppose it has a slightly oboe-like (nasal) character that many express dislike for, or think is undeveloped. If you play soprano, try imitating his sound -- it is not easy. To me he is playing to express rather than entertain, and this is very purposeful. Two very different motivations (express vs. entertain) leading to very different sound concepts. I remember being struck the first time I heard Coltrane play "My Favorite Things" on soprano in high school and I still like it. It has a depth and human quality to it.

As you can see in the current other thread discussing soprano tone concepts, preferences are all over the map. I like many types of different soprano sounds as well.

 

According to various biographies, when Coltrane first started playing My Favorite Things, he fascinated with Indian music. What jazz player wouldn't be interested in a thousand years of improvisation? In particular, he was interested in chanter music.

I believe Coltrane was experimenting with mimicking a chanter for effect on his soprano when he played My Favorite Things. Afro Blue is another example. When he played other pieces at different times, he used a different type of timbre.

But, this thread is about mouthpiece and timbre. We probably all agree that mouthpiece has a bigger role than the horn does in creating a specific timbre. My point is the the player is the ultimate factor in determining timbre. Duh? We do it every day.

Afro Blue

Central Park West

 

The article should have started and ended with one paragraph ...

Using the same mouthpiece as Coltrane won't make you sound like him, Busch said. "It'll get you a little bit of the way, if you put in the work," Busch said. "But to really sound like John Coltrane, you have to be John Coltrane."

 

The article should have started and ended with one paragraph ...

Using the same mouthpiece as Coltrane won't make you sound like him, Busch said. "It'll get you a little bit of the way, if you put in the work," Busch said. "But to really sound like John Coltrane, you have to be John Coltrane."

Well, but then it wouldn't have included anything about Duke and what an awesome and interesting university it is! We have to remember: this is written for an alumni magazine, and the sole purpose of the piece is to make alumni feel good about their alma mater and, hopefully, give some money. They're not trying to make any profound points about sax playing or Coltrane's music. I'm actually kind of impressed that they even included that bit at the end about how so many different things figure into a player's sound.

I'm not sure why so many comments have focused on Trane's soprano sound, since the article was about (one of) his tenor mouthpieces, and never mentions that he even played soprano. But I think two circles nailed it: Coltrane's soprano playing was very influenced by Indian music, and was not an attempt to emulate the way western classical musicians or even previous generations of jazz musicians sounded on the soprano. He was trying to push the instrument and jazz itself into new territory. Some people really like that about him, and feel like he succeeded. Others seem offended by the very idea. Me, I tend to think that the fact that his music arouses such passionate reactions, both pro and con, is one indication that he was on the right track.

 

I think most of us processed the contents of the article very quickly and moved on to what we find more interesting to discuss...hence the tangents on Coltrane's soprano sound (unrelated to the article).

 

The article kind of missed the point with its search for a catchy title. The project was never about Coltrane in any respect.

It was only about the question of whether it would be possible to make an extremely precise copy of a hand-picked example of a great vintage mouthpiece, that would sound a lot like that particular mouthpiece. What was learned in the research was a few things:
1. It's possible, but not easy, to make an extremely precise copy of a specific mouthpiece. (Somewhat encouraging, a little bit surprising.)
2. When a bunch of people played both the copy and the original back to back, they sounded the same on both, and different from how they sounded on other mouthpieces. (Surprising/encouraging to me at least). (They did both spectral analysis on the sound samples and self-reporting through a tone survey. I was one of many participants, and it was fun!)
3. People still sounded different from each other on the same mouthpiece. (No surprise.)

But journalists have to look for an angle. Hence the endless discussion about copying Coltrane's tone. That's impossible. Copying a mouthpiece very precisely, including its distinctive contribution to tone, isn't.

 

It was only about the question of whether it would be possible to make an extremely precise copy of a hand-picked example of a great vintage mouthpiece, that would sound a lot like that particular mouthpiece.

Looks like they came pretty close to doing just this.

I also think Phil (PhilTone mpcs) did a pretty good job copying a specific Florida Link with his Tribute tenor mpc. Of course I didn't have the original Florida piece to compare it to, but he seems to think it comes very close. I can say it's an excellent mpc and better than any Link I've played, with the caveat that I haven't played many Links.

 

I had Tyler at GetASax do a couple of A/B comparison videos of the original and the copy where we cut back and forth between the original Reso Chamber and the GS Reso, playing the same tune. We did the same thing on the Slant we copied versus the GS Slant. You can find the GetASax YouTube channel here (that's the subscribe link, which you are more than welcome not to do!! ). We tried to keep all other variables the same including reed, ligature, microphone positioning etc, and keep the sound as hifi as possible. Listening on HD or 4K gives you the best sound quality. https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCMAAe3lFRpSyH6qVQ-638UA?sub_confirmation=1

 

Yeah, you want a mouthpiece that makes it easy to get the sound in your head. And one that has a good facing. My thought was to pick the best mouthpieces I've played (out of thousands) that are also ridiculously expensive to get originals of on the vintage market, and then make extremely precise copies of those. And then hand face them with the best facings I've come across. And price them as low as possible. That's the idea of the GS Mouthpieces line. We have my favorite Meyer Bros alto piece and my best MC Gregory Model A in the works. Then on to soprano and baritone.