[SchlockRod]

I can't call him up and ask him, so I'll ask you guys:
I've got his book The Intervallic Concept, and I been practicing from it lately. It's a pretty good and challenging book by the way.
Today for some reason I thumbed through the first pages... It had been a while. In there, he says:
"... the thinner the reed the more mouthpiece you take into your mouth. The thicker the reed the less mouthpiece you take into your mouth."
Huh? Anybody have a clue? Why it might mean (just pondering):
1. Does he mean strength?... thinner = softer, etc.? I doubt it. That just doesn't make sense unless you're biting down to close the tip on a too hard reed (or too open mouthpiece), which is just wrong.
2. Do he mean, say... soprano reed is way thinner than a baritone reed... I highly doubt that, unless he meant "relatively speaking", which still doesn't make much sense.
3. Is he talking about the cut of the reed? If so, does he mean the tip? The vamp as a whole? (pretty hard to assign a thickness to, since reeds with thick tips are often thinner further back than, say a Vandoren Blue Box)
4. Is he talking about the blank thickness?

I've never heard anything like this before. Thanks in advance for any insight, even though I'll probably do what I've been doing, which is do it by listening/feeling as I blow and produce a tone... feedback, ear to mouth, in a sense.

By the way, I'd say that whatever he meant, facing length, and your mouth and way of blowing do make some difference. But he doesn't mention any of that.

 

[kreacher]

It's actually a metaphor for life. When things are going easier and great (thinner) you have to take advantage and enjoy it all. When things are harder (thicker) you have to be careful, take a step back and make sure the direction is right.

I mean, who knows? Most people don't know what they are saying, and try to think of something that sort of makes sense in their minds to explain phenomenons they don't understand or know how to explain.

 

[whaler]

That would be the part of that book that would worry me the least.
Have you tried to play any of those exercises? Impossible unless you’re Eddie Harris.
He always used small tip mouthpieces like a Selmer C*. It’s the only way you’d have the flexibility to play that stuff.

 

[dha]

I have that book and periodically, with great ambition, I tell myself I will get through the book from cover to cover. Like the previous post says, some if those exercises are extremely difficult, especially when it gets up to the altissimo range. That's when I bail out. Still it is a great book to just read through.

 

[1saxman]

It is a commonly held thought that harder reeds are thicker. In fact, within a brand/model, all the strengths are the same thickness because they are cut on the same machinery. The different strengths are the result of variations in the cane, and each finished reed is gauged to determine what strength it is. This is why they typically can play so differently out of the same box, because of the spread within the grade. Obviously if he was talking about different brands/models, the reeds actually could be thicker or thinner in the critical tip area. However, I don't know if any of this has any effect on how much mouthpiece one takes. If he was serious about it, it could just be something that he learned to do that helped him in his style/sound.

 

[Grumps]

It is a commonly held thought that harder reeds are thicker.

Yeah, Eddie's just spreadin' more myths.

 

[SchlockRod]

Most people don't know what they are saying, and try to think of something that sort of makes sense in their minds to explain phenomenons they don't understand or know how to explain.

You are spot on! Amazing! You've just explained perfectly me trying to talk to my wife!

 

[SchlockRod]

Mr. whaler!

Right! You got it!
This is why I was asking this just out of curiosity, and I said I’ll probably continue forming my embouchure by feel, from day to day, tune to tune, instrument to instrument.
In fact, I think I thumbed through those pages after I cracked the book open at random thinking I’d start into whatever came up... and then a a wee voice in my subconscious (It wasn’t Eddie Harris saying “Listen here! You gonna play this stuff if it kills ya!”) screamed a blood-curdling but silent scream and said “Hm. What say we read Eddie’s advice to beginner students. It’s been forever since we looked at that.”

 

[SchlockRod]

You are spot on! Amazing! You've just explained perfectly me trying to talk to my wife!

By the way, a famous quote from Miles is: "If you understood everything I said, you'd be me!"

 

[SchlockRod]

It is a commonly held thought that harder reeds are thicker. In fact, within a brand/model, all the strengths are the same thickness because they are cut on the same machinery. The different strengths are the result of variations in the cane, and each finished reed is gauged to determine what strength it is. This is why they typically can play so differently out of the same box, because of the spread within the grade. Obviously if he was talking about different brands/models, the reeds actually could be thicker or thinner in the critical tip area. However, I don't know if any of this has any effect on how much mouthpiece one takes. If he was serious about it, it could just be something that he learned to do that helped him in his style/sound.

Right! Yes I learned this reading something by someone who had been in the reed business.
And - Aha! - I'm certain you've nailed what Eddie must have meant... It makes some sense (like all rules, they work for some and others find their own rules.).
By "makes some sense" I mean that a harder reed will "blow easier" (as in less hard work - airstream - and more easy work - closing up the tip which is easier out toward the tip due to simple physics), if one plays it closer to the tip. I personally wouldn't call that the right way to play a harder reed, for me. Maybe for certain areas like subtone, vababoowoo sound, etc.
By the way, having been involved in manufacturing, after I learned how different reed strengths are assigned, I realized that the manufacturers develop their blank thickness/cut (here we're talking actual "thickness"), given their particular cane characteristics, so as to produce a mean (or median, or maybe average?) strength that meets their criteria for their "middle number" - say, 3, if they sell reeds in 1 to 5 strength. Having done that, with whatever quality control they put in place, reed production will conform to something resembling a (or an actual) bell curve, with far more 3s, or 2 1/2s, whatever their "average" strength is that they based their blank thickness/cut on... which happens to be how the market is shaped, I would think (lots more players buying 2 1/2s, 3s than other strengths, very few buying 1s or 5s).
One other thing about reeds I've discovered:
Some of the most amazing reeds I've played are no longer made, and had super-thin blanks like I've never seen on any modern reed. The two main reeds that come to mind are Rico Brown Box and Morre. This illustrates that blank thickness, though it obviously has some bearing on strength, is less a factor than we might think. The main reason, as I see it, must be that strength cannot be proportional to blank thickness. The reason, I'm fairly certain, is that cane material properties are hardly the same at any given distance from surface (bark) of cane. Anyway, something about that denser material closer to the bark made those reeds very special, and by no means softer. From base of vamp to tip, the material was more like that of the bark than in other reeds.
That said, there are plenty of good-playing modern reeds on the market, fortunately.