[ving]

Has anyone else come to this conclusion? I have spent so much time focusing on what some mouthpieces can't do, I decided recently to rethink that. Maybe a better way to evaluate a mouthpiece is to look at what it is instead and what it does well; no piece will be perfect anyhow, right? And if you transcend the piece and sound pretty much the same on any given piece than why get caught up in all the things a piece can't do? If you are happy with how it plays and the things its does well (or there are enough factors that is does well) then maybe the thinking should stop there. This is probably obvious, but perhaps is worth thinking about...think of all the good pieces I have passed up that did a lot of things well for the one thing it didn't....

 

[blackfrancis]

I agree... a simple, positive outlook that gets one away from GAS and back to playing (the important thing).

 

[stevesklar]

I use only about 5 pieces and I know, visually, how they would play and in what settings to use them in.

I think it's important that players learn what characteristics make mpcs have a certain tonal qualities - this helps in selection. Then just use them and play them.

 

[RootyTootoot]

Whilst I see a lot of sense in this general approach I also know at the same time that I'll keep on swapping m/ps. And i'm not in a position where I have to worry much about being top-rate in different styles (like a pro player) so I don't really need a variety of m/ps. That seems stupid but I think there are reasons. First, as a rule I adopt the usual musician attitutude of "practice what you can't do, not what you can", so if I see inadequacies in my playing i'll change stuff to try and fix it, and the m/p will change things. Second, I do find that to a certain extent the "messing around" involved in trying new set ups makes me think harder about what i'm trying to achieve and occasionally it has (I think) created a stimulus that made my playing improve quite a bit. At the same time I can't help noticing that most of the players I really admire seem to stick with the same set up for a very long time and very rarely change.

 

[rleitch]

Maybe a better way to evaluate a mouthpiece is to look at what it is instead and what it does well; no piece will be perfect anyhow, right? And if you transcend the piece and sound pretty much the same on any given piece than why get caught up in all the things a piece can't do? If you are happy with how it plays and the things its does well (or there are enough factors that is does well) then maybe the thinking should stop there.

Sounds right on to me, although I sort of hope I never "transcend" my mouthpieces. This is why I'm so crazy about my vintage NYWWco piece: it can't do everything--like cut through loud stage volume--but it does allow me to get a nice vintagey, Lester Youngish sort of tone, which I just love to hear when I'm practicing scales and patterns etc.

Rory

 

[Chicken 'Lil]

When I was studying with Joe's (Viola and Allard) they both hammered home the idea that the mouthpiece had primacy over the rest of the horn. Their view, and one that I believe that you are espousing, is simplicity. I know that there are some players who change pieces like they change pants. If that works for them great. I have come back to the conclusion that you did; play what works and stop looking around.

 

[MojoBari]

Hows about another slap?

http://www.saxontheweb.net/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=44356&highlight=mojo*

 

[ving]

Mojo, maybe I have articulated that which you espoused back then. Anyhow, I would assume you agree...?

 

[TJS]

I like Keith's statement about shades of good versus shades of bad. This is not only a good way to approach equipment but life as well.

 

[ving]

Yeah, what I meant was that you can probably eliminate any piece if try you hard enough....if it works, it works....