• FAQ • Search • Memberlist • Usergroups • Register • Profile • Log in to check your private messages • Log in

CAN VENDORS GET THEIR INFO RIGHT REGARDING WICKS PRODUCTS.

Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3

trumpetherald.com Forum Index -> Mouthpieces

View previous topic :: View next topic

Author

Message

Crazy Finn
Heavyweight Member

Joined: 27 Dec 2001
Posts: 8333
Location: Twin Cities, Minnesota

Posted: Tue Apr 18, 2017 12:19 am Post subject:

bassguy wrote:

I recently found my stock Hawk 3 mouthpiece. It has a significantly wider rim than my Curry 3 & my Wicks 4. This might surprise you, but the Curry 3 is wider than the Bach 3. You have to use a Curry 8.5 (16.23mm) to match a Bach 7. They aren't standardized.

It's the Bach mouthpieces that aren't standardized, not the Curry mouthpieces.

Bach mouthpieces sizes have varied over the years. The Curry mouthpiece rims are based on specific Bach mouthpieces and rims - as this ONE 3C and this ONE 7C.

All Curry 3 rims are (or should be) the same, all Curry 8.5 rims are the same.

However, all Bach 3C rims are not the same, nor are Bach 1 1/2C or 7C or any other number (let alone the rim between a 3C and a 3B, etc which are definitely not) - at least until the switched over to CNC machining - which was at some point in the decade. Before that, cutting tool wear and hand machining resulted in a fair degree of size variability within a given model.
_________________
LA Benge 3X Bb Trumpet
Selmer Radial Bb Trumpet
Yamaha 6335S Bb Trumpet
Besson 709 Bb Trumpet
Bach 184L Bb Cornet
Yamaha 731 Bb Flugelhorn

Louise Finch
Heavyweight Member

Joined: 10 Aug 2012
Posts: 5467
Location: Suffolk, England

Posted: Tue Apr 18, 2017 1:51 am Post subject:

bassguy wrote:

Hi bassguy

This is a bit of an ironic update. I went ahead and got a Curry 3 FL-M because the 3 size FEELS comparable to the Wicks,

I honestly don't feel that it does. I agree that the rim contour of the Bach 3C/Curry 3 is more like the Denis Wick rims (i.e. flatter) than the Bach 7C/Curry 7, but I don't agree that the Curry 3 cup diameter feels comparable to a Denis Wick 4.

Admittedly my Bach 3C is a larger variant, but I personally feel that the Denis Wick 4 rim diameter is smaller than a typical Bach 3C, and to me, the Denis Wick 4 diameter feels smaller than even my Bach 7C.

& I wanted all rim widths to feel consistent. I figured that extra (.4mm of the 16.9 mm Curry 3 wouldn't make a difference (over the 16.5mm of the Curry 7, but it does. I still have my 7 FL that I kept to long to return. Today it proved equally as limiting in terms of range & endurance as the 3 FLM. That means that I would be better off playing a 7 FLM, or maybe an 8.5 FLM.

For me personally, I find the upper register easier on a Bach 7C than a Bach 3C, despite the 7C being deeper and having a larger cup volume. For me personally, cup diameter has a greater effect on ease of upper register (I have the same overall range on everything) than cup depth.

IIt's time to just take those Wicks mouthpieces out of the equation.in spite of there many appealing qualities. I did try out the Wicks 16 mm 5BFL & even that hampered my range & endurance (thanks to the wide throat. (But what a sound!)

I fully understand.

I recently found my stock Hawk 3 mouthpiece. It has a significantly wider rim than my Curry 3 & my Wicks 4.

Do you mean wider in terms of cup diameter? I presume you don't mean wider in terms of rim width.

This might surprise you, but the Curry 3 is wider than the Bach 3.

I would definitely say that the Curry 3 is wider than the Bach 3 (as in the Bach 3 no letter cups I tried), but regarding the Bach 3C, there is so much variation in Bach 3Cs, that this really depends in my opinion on the individual Bach 3C. I would definitely say that the Curry 3 has a cup diameter equivalent to a larger variant Bach 3C.

You have to use a Curry 8.5 (16.23mm) to match a Bach 7.

Again I think it depends on the individual Bach 7. My corp. Bach 7C cornet mouthpiece is larger than the four 2009 cornet Bach 3Cs I tried, before rejecting them because I found them too small (I cannot play a Bach 3C with a cup diameter as small as the quoted specs of 16.30mm, finding that the minimum cup diameter which works for me is 16.50mm).

They aren't standardized.

I truly believe they are, but with the Bach Mount Vernon rather than modern Bach mouthpieces. Since the Bach Mount Vernon 3Cs are generally as larger or larger than a modern Bach 3C, Mark Curry has downsized his Curry 3C. to better match the size of a typical modern Bach 3C. In my opinion, his 3C. matches the size of a large variant Bach 3C.

So the Curry 3 & Wicks mouthpieces have an RTA & are going back.

I understand, thanks.

Because the FLM series is just a bit brighter than I want I am thinking of going with an intermediate .433 bored instrument.

Sorry, I'm not sure that I understand. Doesn't your Hawk have a .460" bore? I would have thought that switching to a smaller (intermediate .433") flugel would make the sound even brighter, or are you thinking of using the FL series with a .433" bored flugel?

I am musing that the overall conicity & a rose brass beel might soften the sound adequately.

Again, sorry I don't understand the relationship between conicity and a rose brass bell, and bore size.

(going .413" I guess might be too light sounding for me. Again, that Bach 183 sounded pretty small & light using my Curry mouthpiece.

I wasn't aware that you had tried a Bach 183. I personally don't find the Bach 183 light sounding, but we are all different.

Take care

Lou

_________________
Trumpets:
Yamaha 8335 Xeno II
Bach Strad 180ML/37
B&H Oxford
Kanstul F Besson C
Yamaha D and D/Eb
- James R New Custom 3Cs
Flugel:
Bach Strad 183 - Bach 3CFL
Cornets:
Yamaha Neo + Xeno
Bach Strad 184ML
B&H Imperial
- Kanstul Custom 3Cs

bassguy
Veteran Member

Joined: 25 May 2016
Posts: 336

Posted: Tue Apr 18, 2017 3:52 am Post subject:

Louise Finch wrote:

bassguy wrote:

Yes, that eldeely guy who plays Saturday nighrs at the same venue where I play bass Sundays (some other evenings too) plays a Bach Strad. I only got to play it out in tge parking lot for about 2 minutes. I noticed that in comparison to my Hawk it took on more of a french horn like character. It was smoother, rounder & darker sounding. It had certain horn luke character of lughtly cracking sometimes while slurring & slotting upwards. Howwver, the sound was small. Using the Wicks 4FL the sound was just right. Using the Curry, pretty light.

My understanding now is that the darkness, the aspect of a flugelhorn that gives it its French horn like fluffiness is the overall conicity. If you take a smaller lead pipe & valve casing than I have on my Hawk, attach it to the remainder of the flugelhorn (same bell & flare leading to it*) it will be smoother.

Although .460" horns tend to sound bigger, people complain that they can sound trumpety.(just a small edginess) or trombonish (you have to have a fat sound in the first place for that.)

A Kanstul sales rep pointed out to me that the .453" bored 725 is actually a smaller bored horn than the .421" bored 1525 with the 1525's massive 6 1/2" bell & flare.

Red or rose brass is presumably 90℅ copper. Its soft, its supposed to sound softer & it's highly coveted in a flugelhorn. People make a bug deal over the copper belled Flip Lakes Wild Thing or Kanstul 1525.

So this could be an interesting experiment. The smaller bore might give a smaller over all sound, but if its darker, & with nothing else at hand to compare it with, it could sound sufficiently fat.

Incidentally, it was in Dillon Music web order form it reads that a Curry Large Morse Taper is comparable with a Bach--it will stuck out farther.

Louise Finch
Heavyweight Member

Joined: 10 Aug 2012
Posts: 5467
Location: Suffolk, England

Posted: Tue Apr 18, 2017 8:43 am Post subject:

bassguy wrote:

Louise Finch wrote:

bassguy wrote:

Hi bassguy

Yes, that eldeely guy who plays Saturday nighrs at the same venue where I play bass Sundays (some other evenings too) plays a Bach Strad. I only got to play it out in tge parking lot for about 2 minutes. I noticed that in comparison to my Hawk it took on more of a french horn like character. It was smoother, rounder & darker sounding. It had certain horn luke character of lughtly cracking sometimes while slurring & slotting upwards. Howwver, the sound was small. Using the Wicks 4FL the sound was just right. Using the Curry, pretty light.

Interesting, thanks. Regarding the smallness and lightness of sound, as you have said previously, this depends on the player's own inherent sound. I always feel that I get quite a big sound out of my Bach 183, but I don't have another flugel horn on which to compare my sound.

My understanding now is that the darkness, the aspect of a flugelhorn that gives it its French horn like fluffiness is the overall conicity. If you take a smaller lead pipe & valve casing than I have on my Hawk, attach it to the remainder of the flugelhorn (same bell & flare leading to it*) it will be smoother.

Maybe, all things being equal, I've never really thought about it. Personally, I would just go on how a particular flugel horn sounds regardless of its specifications.

Although .460" horns tend to sound bigger, people complain that they can sound trumpety.(just a small edginess) or trombonish (you have to have a fat sound in the first place for that.)

I agree with this, but I personally feel that this may also be owing to the larger bore making it easier for a less experienced flugel player to approach the flugel like a trumpet.

A Kanstul sales rep pointed out to me that the .453" bored 725 is actually a smaller bored horn than the .421" bored 1525 with the 1525's massive 6 1/2" bell & flare.

I'd say that technically he is incorrect as bore size is measured at just the location of the 2nd slide and 0.453" is bigger than 0.421", but yes, I see his point. The larger bell makes the 1525 internally larger overall.

Red or rose brass is presumably 90℅ copper. Its soft, its supposed to sound softer & it's highly coveted in a flugelhorn. People make a bug deal over the copper belled Flip Lakes Wild Thing or Kanstul 1525.

Yes, I understand what red/rose brass is, thanks, and its affect on sound, I was just confused about why you were considering a smaller bore size on the one hand, and a rose brass bell on the other. Were you considering one to somehow compensate for the other?

So this could be an interesting experiment. The smaller bore might give a smaller over all sound, but if its darker, & with nothing else at hand to compare it with, it could sound sufficiently fat.

Forget my last question above, I now see what you mean. You are suggesting going to a smaller bore but darkening the sound via a gold, red or rose brass bell. On the same flugel, a gold, red or rose brass bell may be worth considering over a yellow brass bell. As you know doubt realise however, differences between different makes/models may very well more than cancel out any differences in sound between different bell materials.

Incidentally, it was in Dillon Music web order form it reads that a Curry Large Morse Taper is comparable with a Bach--it will stuck out farther.

Earlier in this thread I said the following:

The Yamaha taper is the same taper as the Bach taper but with a larger end diameter. Yamaha taper mouthpieces will therefore fit in flugels which take a Bach taper, but will not insert very far.

The Dillon Music web order form is therefore consistent with what I have already said, although of course it would make far more sense to buy a Curry mouthpiece with a small morse (Bach) taper if you happened to own a flugel which took a small morse (Bach) taper mouthpiece.

I hope that some of my response may be of use to you.

Take care

Lou

dstdenis
Heavyweight Member

Joined: 25 May 2013
Posts: 2123
Location: Atlanta GA

Posted: Tue Apr 18, 2017 2:35 pm Post subject:

bassguy wrote:

...The smaller bore might give a smaller over all sound, but if its darker, & with nothing else at hand to compare it with, it could sound sufficiently fat.

I noticed this comment and thought I'd jump in to share my experience with my Courtois 155R flugel. It's small bore (.413) but it doesn't have a small sound. To me, it sounds huge. Maybe in part because the bell is slightly larger, at 6-1/2", though it might just be a result of all of the design choices made by Courtois.

I acquired this flugel last summer, and since then I've used it to play in pit orchestra for two musicals. I love the sound and playability. I'll be playing it again later this month in a band that's backing soloists in Copland's Quiet City. Looking forward to it.

Anyway, thought you might be interested in my experience. Not saying you should go get a Courtois, just sharing some info that a small bore flugel doesn't necessarily mean a small sound.
_________________
Bb Yamaha Xeno 8335IIS
Cornet Getzen Custom 3850S
Flugelhorn Courtois 155R
Piccolo Stomvi

razeontherock
Heavyweight Member

Joined: 05 Jun 2004
Posts: 10609
Location: The land of GR and Getzen

Posted: Tue Apr 18, 2017 4:35 pm Post subject:

GordonH wrote:

Anyway, the F fitting is for the old British Besson /Boosey instruments and is like a cornet fitting. So 4F 2F 3F

FL is large Yamaha type fitting. Also made in a shallower cup so 2FL 2BFL are both large fitting.

D fitting is very large shank like a trumpet for German rotary flugels. Shallow cup for playing like a cornet in Fanfarenkorps and other bands. So 2FLD 4FLD

Quoted due to accuracy!

As if that weren't confusing enough, I have a cornet that will take a Bach tapered flugel mpc.

Intonation on a flugel is greatly affected by getting a shank that fits well.

razeontherock
Heavyweight Member

Joined: 05 Jun 2004
Posts: 10609
Location: The land of GR and Getzen

Posted: Tue Apr 18, 2017 4:38 pm Post subject:

Crazy Finn wrote:

Before that, cutting tool wear and hand machining resulted in a fair degree of size variability within a given model.

Not too long ago I tested 8 new Bach 3C mpcs in a music store. They were all different, with one being FAR superior (for me)

So if Bach has changed to CNC it has not affected their unreliability

Crazy Finn
Heavyweight Member

Joined: 27 Dec 2001
Posts: 8333
Location: Twin Cities, Minnesota

Posted: Tue Apr 18, 2017 6:41 pm Post subject:

razeontherock wrote:

Crazy Finn wrote:

Before that, cutting tool wear and hand machining resulted in a fair degree of size variability within a given model.

Not too long ago I tested 8 new Bach 3C mpcs in a music store. They were all different, with one being FAR superior (for me)

So if Bach has changed to CNC it has not affected their unreliability

Good to know!
_________________
LA Benge 3X Bb Trumpet
Selmer Radial Bb Trumpet
Yamaha 6335S Bb Trumpet
Besson 709 Bb Trumpet
Bach 184L Bb Cornet
Yamaha 731 Bb Flugelhorn

bassguy
Veteran Member

Joined: 25 May 2016
Posts: 336

Posted: Wed Apr 19, 2017 2:29 pm Post subject:

Hi Lou, Just for the record I had to go out of town yesterday & didn't practice. Today I managed to get through "feel so good" a fifth down, twice im a row without having to stop & rest. That was using the Curry 3FL. At this point I probably should hang on to it instead of rwturning it in Ebay, even rhough I could probly go higher on the 7 FLM that Dillon is sending back to me.There was a lot of air noise, but it was fairly dark sounding. It wouldn't surprise me if I could make that 3FLM mouthpiece my principle one within a year. No way to get around accumulating a small collection of mouthpieces as one develops. That Curry 3 inner diameter just feels so right resting on my lips--like the Wicks 4. I posted in 'Comeback players' & cataloged my issues, asking if my slow progress was normal (after 35 years) & the general consensus is that I should get lessons with some embouchure expert. After today's practice session I know my embouchure is OK & I'm on the right track. As for the Flugelhorn I ordered (scheduled to arrive on Saturday) it is largerly an issue of curiosity. It is modeled after Chuck Mangione's Yamaha 631G. I live out here because of sparse population. The Caveat is that people must drive hundreds of miles to audition various instruments. Ultimately it boils down to postage & return postage costs verses wear & tear on ones vehicle. You are right that one particular .433", rose brass brand cannot be absolutely representative of all the others, but it can give some insight. Either way I am being financially reckless &.this falls under that "what was I thinking" category! But if it can sound markedly darker/smoother with a Curry FLM, I will feel impelled to keep the Dillon, as won't have a need for a deeper mouthpiece. . Last edited by bassguy on Wed Apr 19, 2017 6:43 pm; edited 1 time in total

bassguy
Veteran Member

Joined: 25 May 2016
Posts: 336

Posted: Wed Apr 19, 2017 2:46 pm Post subject:

dstdenis wrote:

bassguy wrote:

...The smaller bore might give a smaller over all sound, but if its darker, & with nothing else at hand to compare it with, it could sound sufficiently fat.

Thanx for your input. Jack Kanstul wrote to me & said that when a .413" bote flugelhorn flairs out to a large 6 1/2" bell, it is a bigger bored instrument. His .420" 1525 is a bigger bored flugelhorn than his .453" bored 725 (so he says). He also told me the likelihood of my hitting a high note on his 725, 925 & 1025 are just a little greater than hitting it on his 1525, because it's so big.

So it seems that much of the flugelhorn's dark timbre comes from the overall conicity. Starting small & flaring outwards. This is where the small bored flugelhorns have an advantage. In my case my particular tone is a bit small, however I want to hit strong B-flats & Cs too. So obviously there is a trade off involved somewhere. To compound matters, after a 35 year layoff I've only been playing since February 3rd, & I'm in a developmental phase & can't form definitive conclusions about what's optimal to play.

Incidentally, nearly a year ago I started a thread inquiring about flugelhorn bore size. I didn't espouse any opinion one way or the other, except for expressing some degree of concern regarding smallness of sound & stuffiness if I did go with a small bore. It was the type of feedback regarding your Cortious, & Jack Kanstyl's opinion that I was seeking. Instead, a certain troll (simply appaled at my naivety) went on the war path against me & hasn't let up since

Louise Finch
Heavyweight Member

Joined: 10 Aug 2012
Posts: 5467
Location: Suffolk, England

Posted: Thu Apr 20, 2017 1:21 am Post subject:

bassguy wrote:

Hi Lou,

Just for the record I had to go out of town yesterday & didn't practice. Today I managed to get through "feel so good" a fifth down, twice im a row without having to stop & rest.

Hi bassguy

Thank you very much for letting me know. I'm not completely surprised at this. Sometimes it is possible to practice too hard, and giving the embouchure muscles a rest, allows you to start again in a better place.

As an example, I have five band gigs in four days in six weeks time to prepare for, and although I am generally happy with my endurance, after having been ill and having the Easter break, I didn't think it was quite as good as usual on my last gig. I have been addressing this in my practice sessions, working on the Stanley Boddington arrangement of Silver Threads Among the Gold. This has many high Cs. If I practice too much without sufficient breaks one day, often I won't have quite the ease of upper register the next (that is the only difference I notice), and over time I have learned to take regular breaks during my practice sessions and leave practicing the next day if I feel that I have inadvertently over done things or have had a heavy band practice.

That things were better after a day off is either coincidence or in my opinion,
more likely that you have been working probably too hard and your embouchure muscles needed a break.

In your situation, I would take this as a sign that I need to take more regular breaks in my practice sessions and stop playing earlier, before I have reached a level of fatigue that may take longer to recover from than the following day.

That was using the Curry 3FL. At this point I probably should hang on to it instead of rwturning it in Ebay, even rhough I could probly go higher on the 7 FLM that Dillon is sending back to me.There was a lot of air noise, but it was fairly dark sounding. It wouldn't surprise me if I could make that 3FLM mouthpiece my principle one within a year. No way to get around accumulating a small collection of mouthpieces as one develops. That Curry 3 inner diameter just feels so right resting on my lips--like the Wicks 4.

You probably won't like me saying this, but I disagree with the idea of accumulating a small collection of mouthpieces as one develops, especially in the early or comeback stages. My suggestion would be to start with something middle of the road and stick with it for at least six months, maybe a year.

The Curry 3 is a nice rim. If you like it, I'd stick with it. I'm not sure if you still have your Curry 3FLM, but if you do, I'd personally suggest going with it, and sending back, selling or putting away everything else for the next six months. I really thing that ultimately your ability to be able to comfortably achieve the range you are after is more likely to come from choosing one mouthpiece, sticking with it, and having a good daily practice routine, than further experimentation.

I posted in 'Comeback players' & cataloged my issues, asking if my slow progress was normal (after 35 years) & the general consensus is that I should get lessons with some embouchure expert. After today's practice session I know my embouchure is OK & I'm on the right track.

I agree. My opinion as I've said previously is that you are possibly trying to achieve too much too soon, and in your enthusiasm, are possibly slowing your progress by too many changes in equipment. In my opinion, you need a consistent foundation on which to build, which again in my opinion, comes from one mouthpiece rim. It is honestly my opinion, that unless a player picks something extreme or which is a very poor fit (huge for a small child beginner, tiny for a large adult beginner), that it probably wouldn't matter much at least in the beginning stages, if they started on a 10.5C, 7C, 3C, 5C or 1.5C diameter, as long as they had a good practice routine. Yes of course you hear of players saying that after good success on a 3C, a teacher switched them to a 1.5C, and they struggled afterwards with range and endurance because it was just too big. My opinion of this is why switch someone who is having good results already, but that is not my point, rather that if this player had started on a 1.5C, which would ultimately turn out be too big, they probably would still have made good progress with it during their first year of playing, and could switch at a later date when they were in a better position to evaluate whether upper register/endurance issues were owing to a too large cup diameter, or something which could be improved with practice. I honestly can't see how any new player or comeback player can initially be in the position to ascertain what is going to work long term, as they are in the process of developing as a player.

I fully appreciate that I keep banging on about this, and it is not personal towards you. Rightly or wrongly it is just my opinion.

I going to be blunt here. There are teachers on this forum, who either say they start off all their child beginners on the same piece, or something on the lines of they let them try a 10.5C, 7C, 5C, 3C and 1 1/2C, see on which they can most easily produce their first note, and go with that. I'm pretty sure that none of these teachers would recommend giving the child one of each and switching between them constantly. I'm also pretty sure that none of them would suggest picking the mouthpiece on which the player can play higher initially. I do fully appreciate that you are considering sound and articulations in addition to just how high you can play, but sometimes I think that since we as adults can make our own choices, it is too easy to keep experimenting when time on the horn is all that is needed.

My advice therefore is to pick one of your mouthpieces (none of them are extreme), and use it as your consistent base to build upon all which you wish to achieve long term.

As for the Flugelhorn I ordered (scheduled to arrive on Saturday) it is largerly an issue of curiosity. It is modeled after Chuck Mangione's Yamaha 631G. I live out here because of sparse population. The Caveat is that people must drive hundreds of miles to audition various instruments. Ultimately it boils down to postage & return postage costs verses wear & tear on ones vehicle.

You are right that one particular .433", rose brass brand cannot be absolutely representative of all the others, but it can give some insight. Either way I am being financially reckless &.this falls under that "what was I thinking" category! But if it can sound markedly darker/smoother with a Curry FLM, I will feel impelled to keep the Dillon, as won't have a need for a deeper mouthpiece. .

I fully understand. I'm not sure what my opinion is of Chinese flugels, not having played them, but it is my understanding that the Trent Austin and Dillon ones (which I believe are basically the same instrument) are a better choice than what is basically the same flugel on Ebay, owing to their input, and that a copy of the Yamaha 631G is a good middle of the road choice.

Anyway I truly wish you luck with everything.

Please don't be offended by me. I'm truly of the thought of pick something middle of the road to begin with, make consistent progress on it, experiment later on in your development with a good idea of what you are looking to gain out of each change, changing one parameter at a time, so that each change can be evaluated in isolation, ultimately picking the right tool for the job, and most importantly, keeping in mind that it is the indian not the arrow. Chuck Mangione could have probably played Feels So Good on any flugel or any mouthpiece.

Take care and very best wishes

Lou

nordlandstrompet
Veteran Member

Joined: 05 Apr 2008
Posts: 266
Location: Norway

Posted: Thu Apr 20, 2017 3:28 am Post subject:

Denis Wick "F" vs "FL" _________________ Nordlands http://www.brassnor.no CarolBrass Scandinavia --------------------------- Taylor Chicago Custom X-VR Chicago Gen III CarolBrass CTR-5200V-(D)-L CCT-9392-GLS(D) CCR-9990-RSM-SLB CPT-3000-GLS CPT-1000 mini

Louise Finch
Heavyweight Member

Joined: 10 Aug 2012
Posts: 5467
Location: Suffolk, England

Posted: Thu Apr 20, 2017 4:15 am Post subject:

nordlandstrompet wrote:

Denis Wick "F" vs "FL"

The picture that says a thousand words!

Thanks very much for posting this.

Take care

Lou
_________________
Trumpets:
Yamaha 8335 Xeno II
Bach Strad 180ML/37
B&H Oxford
Kanstul F Besson C
Yamaha D and D/Eb
- James R New Custom 3Cs
Flugel:
Bach Strad 183 - Bach 3CFL
Cornets:
Yamaha Neo + Xeno
Bach Strad 184ML
B&H Imperial
- Kanstul Custom 3Cs

jimspeedjae
Veteran Member

Joined: 05 Apr 2013
Posts: 165

Posted: Thu Apr 20, 2017 4:47 am Post subject:

Back to flugel shanks... Mike Prestage (member here) did some shank mods for me...flugal sleeves. Not really sure why this approach isn't seen in more often. Pictured next to an old Selmer for the occasions I might need a straight taper, thought I could get a sleeve for that situation too. The markings are 372 and 355 as per the main small/large shanks

dstdenis
Heavyweight Member

Joined: 25 May 2013
Posts: 2123
Location: Atlanta GA

Posted: Thu Apr 20, 2017 4:57 am Post subject:

bassguy wrote:

Jack Kanstul wrote to me & said that when a .413" bote flugelhorn flairs out to a large 6 1/2" bell, it is a bigger bored instrument. His .420" 1525 is a bigger bored flugelhorn than his .453" bored 725 (so he says). He also told me the likelihood of my hitting a high note on his 725, 925 & 1025 are just a little greater than hitting it on his 1525, because it's so big.

I think that's a valid point. Not that it's a bigger bored instrument in the conventional sense as measured in the valve ports, but in terms of the rate of taper from beginning to end.

bassguy wrote:

So it seems that much of the flugelhorn's dark timbre comes from the overall conicity. Starting small & flaring outwards. This is where the small bored flugelhorns have an advantage. In my case my particular tone is a bit small, however I want to hit strong B-flats & Cs too. So obviously there is a trade off involved somewhere. To compound matters, after a 35 year layoff I've only been playing since February 3rd, & I'm in a developmental phase & can't form definitive conclusions about what's optimal to play.

I agree. I'll also mention that I've been playing quite some time and can play in that particular register on my trumpet fine, but it's much more difficult on my flugel, regardless of mouthpiece choice. Just the nature of the beast, I suppose.

I'm addressing it by how I practice on the instrument. For example, to prepare for the flugel part on Quiet City, I'm doing lots of exercises where I play very soft chromatic scale fragments, in groups of maybe 5 or 6 notes, slurred up and down around the top of the staff. I'm trying to help my embouchure (and subconscious brain) easily find that "sweet spot" where the sound will resonate without me forcing it by overblowing. I've found it requires a sense of focus, and also lots of embouchure strength to hold the aperture small without using excessive mouthpiece pressure.

bassguy wrote:

...a certain troll (simply appaled at my naivety) went on the war path against me & hasn't let up since

Well, this is the internet. I try to pass on by stuff that isn't informative or helpful and just let it go. Anyway, best of luck to you on your journey.
_________________
Bb Yamaha Xeno 8335IIS
Cornet Getzen Custom 3850S
Flugelhorn Courtois 155R
Piccolo Stomvi

Display posts from previous:

	trumpetherald.com Forum Index -> Mouthpieces	All times are GMT - 8 Hours Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3
Page 3 of 3

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum