However, for players that came out of the east coast tradition of the time typical mouthpieces were fairly deep, had a narrow rim, and a much larger bore in the neighborhood of #4 using numbered drills for measurement. For Farkas “normal” was a somewhat shallow mouthpiece with a somewhat wide rim and a bore around #16. While the inner diameter of most commercial mouthpieces of the period was around 17 mm, there were two major schools of thought. What was “normal” in 1956?Īt this point it would be good to step back and look at the state of mouthpiece design in the United States at that time. Actually, a better mouthpiece absolutely can revolutionize your playing ability. Sure, playing something “normal” is good advice generally, but when it comes to mouthpieces you really do need a good one. Starting at the end of the quote, that last item is really bad advice.
If the truth be told, no one mouthpiece or change of mouthpiece is going to revolutionize anyone’s playing ability. Be sure the one you choose has no obviously bad qualities make certain it is comfortable on the lips then stick with it until it is mastered.
It takes experience to know what “normal” is, but study two dozen different models and you will soon recognize moderation. The best advice about mouthpieces, stated in capsule form, would be this: get a mouthpiece which is generally accepted as “normal” …. Conventional wisdom is sometimes bad adviceĪfter a review of the elements of mouthpieces (bore, cup, rim, etc.) Farkas, with a photo similar to this of five cut away mouthpieces, relates,
As this was his starting point, we will also begin here with our extended series of quotations and comments on a variety of topics from master horn teachers. Philip Farkas chose to begin The Art of French Horn Playing with a discussion of mouthpieces and horns.
0 kommentar(er)
