| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Richard III
Heavyweight Member
Joined: 22 May 2007
Posts: 2654
Location: Anacortes, WA
|
 Posted: Wed Feb 08, 2017 8:14 am Post subject: |
 |
|
| bassguy wrote: | | Compared to Dennis Wick's deepist flugelhorn mouthpieces is the extreme WT deeper, and is the throat wider? |
Yes. Whereas the Wick is easily playable, thought it sounds a little like a trombone for me, the Oakes piece is deeper and has a sound that is quite dead to me. If what you are looking for is that ultimate dark sound, it will do it.
_________________
Richard
King 1130 Flugabone
King 12C mouthpiece |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
bassguy
Veteran Member
Joined: 25 May 2016
Posts: 336
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 01, 2017 3:34 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Richard III wrote: | | bassguy wrote: | | Compared to Dennis Wick's deepist flugelhorn mouthpieces is the extreme WT deeper, and is the throat wider? |
Yes. Whereas the Wick is easily playable, thought it sounds a little like a trombone for me, the Oakes piece is deeper and has a sound that is quite dead to me. If what you are looking for is that ultimate dark sound, it will do it. |
Hey Richard. Now I have in my possession the DW 4FL & the Mark Curry 7 FLD. I am a little disappointed in the Curry. Compared to the DW it is just a bit light & even bright. The DW is actually growing on me s it is fat & rich, its range & flexibility is decent in comparison to the Curry.
I guess now I should seriously consider the standard WT (I am certain th Extreme WTisn't an option for mee & so much has been written aboat the Extreme, conversely little about the standard. The Curry's depth is less than the 1" of the WT, but the DW is a bit deeper than 1", yet it's throat is the same as the Curry. The WT has a deeper throat. If I want something a bit brighter than the DW, but still quite dark should the standard WT be a viable alternative? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Don Herman rev2
'Chicago School' Forum Moderator
Joined: 03 May 2005
Posts: 8951
Location: Monument, CO
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 01, 2017 6:45 am Post subject: |
|
|
I have never played a DW mouthpiece.
My standard Flip Oakes flugel mouthpiece is deeper and darker than my Curry flugelhorn mpc. I use them about equally depending upon the music and sound I want. Deep and dark, the FO; the Curry helps me sound a little lighter when I want that.
FWIWFM - Don
_________________
"After silence, that which best expresses the inexpressible, is music" - Aldous Huxley |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Richard III
Heavyweight Member
Joined: 22 May 2007
Posts: 2654
Location: Anacortes, WA
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 01, 2017 8:04 am Post subject: |
|
|
| bassguy wrote: | | Richard III wrote: | | bassguy wrote: | | Compared to Dennis Wick's deepist flugelhorn mouthpieces is the extreme WT deeper, and is the throat wider? |
Yes. Whereas the Wick is easily playable, thought it sounds a little like a trombone for me, the Oakes piece is deeper and has a sound that is quite dead to me. If what you are looking for is that ultimate dark sound, it will do it. |
Hey Richard. Now I have in my possession the DW 4FL & the Mark Curry 7 FLD. I am a little disappointed in the Curry. Compared to the DW it is just a bit light & even bright. The DW is actually growing on me s it is fat & rich, its range & flexibility is decent in comparison to the Curry.
I guess now I should seriously consider the standard WT (I am certain th Extreme WTisn't an option for mee & so much has been written aboat the Extreme, conversely little about the standard. The Curry's depth is less than the 1" of the WT, but the DW is a bit deeper than 1", yet it's throat is the same as the Curry. The WT has a deeper throat. If I want something a bit brighter than the DW, but still quite dark should the standard WT be a viable alternative? |
The FO Standard is one that I don't have. When I originally called Flip about it and asked his advice, he suggested the Extreme. But here's the variable or at least one of them, the horn itself. I was originally playing a Jupiter. It sounded like many other horns. The Adams I currently play does not.
I'm going to pull out a Wick today and spend some time on it. I haven't revisited it in quite a while. Let's see if it can brighten the way I want or if it is still trombone sounding.
If you get the FO Standard, let us know what you think. Thanks.
_________________
Richard
King 1130 Flugabone
King 12C mouthpiece |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Richard III
Heavyweight Member
Joined: 22 May 2007
Posts: 2654
Location: Anacortes, WA
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 01, 2017 8:09 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | Hey Richard. Now I have in my possession the DW 4FL & the Mark Curry 7 FLD. I am a little disappointed in the Curry. Compared to the DW it is just a bit light & even bright. The DW is actually growing on me s it is fat & rich, its range & flexibility is decent in comparison to the Curry. |
I should add that the FLD has a resonance that you may be hearing that the Curry FL doesn't. Range on the FL is a bit easier than the FLD. The FL is quite centered and the notes really lock into place AKA slotting. Since I actually like a lighter sound, the FL doesn't work for me. It may work for you. The depth doesn't really tell the story, it is the angle and shape of the cup etc.
_________________
Richard
King 1130 Flugabone
King 12C mouthpiece |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Grits Burgh
Heavyweight Member
Joined: 04 Oct 2015
Posts: 805
Location: South Carolina
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 01, 2017 1:33 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Player + Mouthpiece + Horn = Sound.
You need to balance the equation. It is not that the Wick or the Flip Oakes or the Curry is a better piece. It is a question of which works best in the equation to get the sound that you are after.
I haven't tried the Flip Oakes or the Wick. I have a Curry 3FL, 3FLM and 3FLD. Depending on the sound that I am trying to achieve, I switch between the three. All three work for me, though they produce different sounds. Most of the time, I go with the 3FLD. I get a very fluffy flugel sound - what I am after most of the time when I pick up a flugel.
In fact, I didn't think much of my flugelhorn until I got my Curry 3FLD. It was the mouthpiece that made the horn.
Regards,
Grits
_________________
Bach Stradivarius 37 (1971)
Schilke HC 1
Getzen 3810 C Cornet
King Master Bb Cornet (1945)
B&S 3145 Challenger I Series Flugelhorn
Life is short; buy every horn you want and die happy. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bassguy
Veteran Member
Joined: 25 May 2016
Posts: 336
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 02, 2017 12:49 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Richard III wrote: | | Quote: | | Hey Richard. Now I have in my possession the DW 4FL & the Mark Curry 7 FLD. I am a little disappointed in the Curry. Compared to the DW it is just a bit light & even bright. The DW is actually growing on me s it is fat & rich, its range & flexibility is decent in comparison to the Curry. |
I should add that the FLD has a resonance that you may be hearing that the Curry FL doesn't. Range on the FL is a bit easier than the FLD. The FL is quite centered and the notes really lock into place AKA slotting. Since I actually like a lighter sound, the FL doesn't work for me. It may work for you. The depth doesn't really tell the story, it is the angle and shape of the cup etc. |
So are you telling me the FL might actually sound darker or more resonant.? I am confused. Maybe it's worth trying to open & try. You like the lighter sound, so you use the shallower cup to get more resonance.?
The DW 4 FL sounds so beautiful I can't believe it. Darker than I expected, but so rich & resonant. At first I found it unplayable, but over the weekend became acclimated to it a bit. Now for the first 15 minutes or so it's playable & I sound pretty good. However, I can't sustain it very long (even though I don't feel markedly tired. One big issue is unwanted, unexpected, spontaneous down slotting from open valve C to middle G, or B to middle F# (second valve). Anyone here ever encounter that? Problem: I have made good progress with that mouthpiece in 4-5 days, but in 4-5 months will I be able to nail that high D in 'Feel so Good'? Will I have any significant flexibility issues or poor endurance. (Only plan to perform 3 numbers out of a 30 tune set list on flugelhornn
Last edited by bassguy on Thu Mar 02, 2017 5:16 am; edited 2 times in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Richard III
Heavyweight Member
Joined: 22 May 2007
Posts: 2654
Location: Anacortes, WA
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 02, 2017 1:08 am Post subject: |
|
|
I spent some time today using a Wick 4FL and I agree with your liking of the sound. Thought not the sound I look for, I did replace the FO Extreme in my bag with the Wick. I do have to tune the flugel differently with the Wick as it is flat throughout all ranges. That could change with use. Regarding range. When I used to play a Wick 4 no letter in my cornet all the time, range was not an issue. I actually had more range with the Wick no letter than all other mouthpieces. It is just acclimation, time and conditioning.
_________________
Richard
King 1130 Flugabone
King 12C mouthpiece |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bassguy
Veteran Member
Joined: 25 May 2016
Posts: 336
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 02, 2017 1:59 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Richard III wrote: | | I spent some time today using a Wick 4FL and I agree with your liking of the sound. Thought not the sound I look for, I did replace the FO Extreme in my bag with the Wick. I do have to tune the flugel differently with the Wick as it is flat throughout all ranges. That could change with use. Regarding range. When I used to play a Wick 4 no letter in my cornet all the time, range was not an issue. I actually had more range with the Wick no letter than all other mouthpieces. It is just acclimation, time and conditioning. |
Just tried the 7 FL & I would describe it as "distant". Meaning that the FLD has more presence (midrange) & sounds kinda "in your face". The FLs have some possibility.
Given that deeper is generally darker, but not entirely, I should give the shallower Wicks 4BFL or 5BFL (16 mm inner rim) mpc a try. The 4 is darker than what I had in mind (but I like it more each day)& the smaller shallower version might work |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bassguy
Veteran Member
Joined: 25 May 2016
Posts: 336
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 02, 2017 3:10 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Richard III wrote: | | I spent some time today using a Wick 4FL and I agree with your liking of the sound. Thought not the sound I look for, I did replace the FO Extreme in my bag with the Wick. I do have to tune the flugel differently with the Wick as it is flat throughout all ranges. That could change with use. Regarding range. When I used to play a Wick 4 no letter in my cornet all the time, range was not an issue. I actually had more range with the Wick no letter than all other mouthpieces. It is just acclimation, time and conditioning. |
More observations. Playing the 7 FL (not the FLD) it is a little softer & doesn't have that upper midrange hump that gives it unwanted presence that the FLD has, & even the Dennis Wicks has a similar upper midrange hump (not as bad!) thst gives it a certain dryness, & thst's in spite of the fat rich sound.
Given the subtleness of the Curry FL depth at .750" I have to stay with that. I also have to take into consideration range, ease of slotting, & endurance. I really think the DWs will give me trouble. I won't take Wicks any further, even the BfL line.
So I have committed myself to the Curry FLs that have a generically dark sound (at least what I always visualized) the question is to just stick with the Curry 7 FL. Or maybe start with the 10.5 FL for several months. Then gradate to the 8.5 FL, & lastly the 7 FL when I am a stronger player. Range is an issue with me. I want to be fluent in the upper G to C (concert range) & the truth is with any deep mouthpiece, even a 15.9 pea shooter like the 10.5 might make a high D (Bb transposition) unrealistic. This prospect might be a bit expensive ($180 plus) but I have successfully narrowed down my choices which were limited in the first place. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
GuidoCorona
Veteran Member
Joined: 29 May 2014
Posts: 377
Location: Summerville, SC
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 02, 2017 4:14 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Hi BassGuy, why not concentrate on your targeted Curry 7Fl from the get go, and so gradually develop your long term embouchure and range directly on it?
G.
_________________
Cornet: Carolbrass CCR7772R-GSS
Euphoniums: Miraphone M5050. Wessex Festivo |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bassguy
Veteran Member
Joined: 25 May 2016
Posts: 336
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 02, 2017 5:15 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| GuidoCorona wrote: | Hi BassGuy, why not concentrate on your targeted Curry 7Fl from the get go, and so gradually develop your long term embouchure and range directly on it?
G. |
Excellent question. Because I am setting deadlines, presently can't hit too many high notes without fatiguing, & those high notes are pretty thin sounding. I really have some doubts as to what my range will be like by Summer. The idea of getting incrementally stronger, having a sold image of success & graduating to larger mouthpieces seemes semi logical.
Edit: If I get, say, a Curry 7MFL, to get better range & slotting & a slightly brighter expressive sound. But who's to say the optimal "target" Curry 7FL should be carved in stone. If I do like the 7 FL-M, I am not sure that a smaller size in the FL depth would complement the shallower V cup, because of the added volume. (See my remark below about a deeper mouthpiece seeming wider)
Last edited by bassguy on Thu Mar 02, 2017 11:51 pm; edited 3 times in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Richard III
Heavyweight Member
Joined: 22 May 2007
Posts: 2654
Location: Anacortes, WA
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 02, 2017 5:49 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Ah. The assumption that the Curry FL-M is merely bright. Not so. It is a chameleon. It is my favorite mouthpiece. Easy range and the sound is anything you want it to be. Play softly and it is smokey. Push just a bit and it brightens. How unlike the really deep mouthpieces which are all about smokey and can't do brighter.
_________________
Richard
King 1130 Flugabone
King 12C mouthpiece |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bassguy
Veteran Member
Joined: 25 May 2016
Posts: 336
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 02, 2017 6:32 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Richard III wrote: | | Ah. The assumption that the Curry FL-M is merely bright. Not so. It is a chameleon. It is my favorite mouthpiece. Easy range and the sound is anything you want it to be. Play softly and it is smokey. Push just a bit and it brightens. How unlike the really deep mouthpieces which are all about smokey and can't do brighter. |
oK, easy range is what I am looking for.Your advise has been quite accurate so far. So tell me please. With all that extra volume that goes along with the extra depth of you DW 4 FL, doesn't it seem more like 17mm compared to the 16.6 of the Curry 7s?
Last edited by bassguy on Fri Mar 03, 2017 12:30 am; edited 2 times in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bassguy
Veteran Member
Joined: 25 May 2016
Posts: 336
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 02, 2017 7:58 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Here is a stupid question & I apologize for it in advance. We all agree that the shallower mouthpieces have greater range & slot more easily AS A RULE. So why is it that so many players seems adamant about keeping inner rim sizes absolutely consistent, even with varying depths for timbral variety?
I only ask this because I have noticed that the very deep DW 4FL FEELS like it has a much wider inner rim than the Curry 7 FLD, & even more so with the FL--even though all are about 16.5mm. As a matter of fact, the DW 4FL feels more like it's 17mm compared to the others. So it seems that what's more important is the total volume of the mouthpuece in terms of consistancy.
That said I'm sticking with the 7 FL (as it's dark enough) & 7 FLM. If I have to go high & can't with the 7 FL the 7 FLM will have to do.
Last edited by bassguy on Fri Mar 03, 2017 1:53 am; edited 3 times in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
RandyTX
Heavyweight Member
Joined: 25 Mar 2010
Posts: 5299
Location: Central Texas
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 02, 2017 8:41 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Can't stand wick mouthpieces. They just do not work for me.
Holy grail flugel mouthpiece for a brass band would be a Wick underpart with a Curry 3. rim screwed on top.
_________________
"Music is like candy, you throw the (w)rappers away." |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
GordonH
Heavyweight Member
Joined: 16 Nov 2002
Posts: 2893
Location: Edinburgh, Scotland
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 03, 2017 2:40 am Post subject: |
|
|
| RandyTX wrote: | Can't stand wick mouthpieces. They just do not work for me.
Holy grail flugel mouthpiece for a brass band would be a Wick underpart with a Curry 3. rim screwed on top. |
That would be pretty close to an Alliance flugel mouthpiece.
_________________
Bb - Scherzer 8218W, Schilke S22, Bach 43, Selmer 19A Balanced
Pic - Weril
Flugel - Courtois 154
Cornet - Geneva Heritage, Conn 28A
Mouthpieces - Monette 1-5 rims and similar.
Licensed Radio Amateur - GM4SVM |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Richard III
Heavyweight Member
Joined: 22 May 2007
Posts: 2654
Location: Anacortes, WA
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 03, 2017 4:10 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | I only ask this because I have noticed that the very deep DW 4FL FEELS like it has a much wider inner rim than the Curry 7 FLD, & even more so with the FL--even though all are about 16.5mm. As a matter of fact, the DW 4FL feels more like it's 17mm compared to the others. So it seems that what's more important is the total volume of the mouthpuece in terms of consistancy. |
It is a combination of rim shape and the inaccuracies of measurement of rimsize from mouthpiece maker to maker. The feeling to you is what is important. There are players that feel the Curry 3 size and Wick 4 match. I am not one of them. For me the Curry 7 and Wick 4 match. I should note that I do have Wicks from 2 to 5 sizes and Curry 3 to 10.5 sizes for comparisons.
_________________
Richard
King 1130 Flugabone
King 12C mouthpiece |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
GordonH
Heavyweight Member
Joined: 16 Nov 2002
Posts: 2893
Location: Edinburgh, Scotland
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 03, 2017 4:18 am Post subject: |
|
|
I measured the following:
Wick 4 16.43mm
Wick 3 16.64mm
Curry 3 rim 16.65mm
The Wick 3 rim is narrower than the Curry though.
A lot of this is down to rim shape rather than absolute diameter.
_________________
Bb - Scherzer 8218W, Schilke S22, Bach 43, Selmer 19A Balanced
Pic - Weril
Flugel - Courtois 154
Cornet - Geneva Heritage, Conn 28A
Mouthpieces - Monette 1-5 rims and similar.
Licensed Radio Amateur - GM4SVM |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bassguy
Veteran Member
Joined: 25 May 2016
Posts: 336
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 03, 2017 2:32 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Richard III wrote: | | Quote: | | I only ask this because I have noticed that the very deep DW 4FL FEELS like it has a much wider inner rim than the Curry 7 FLD, & even more so with the FL--even though all are about 16.5mm. As a matter of fact, the DW 4FL feels more like it's 17mm compared to the others. So it seems that what's more important is the total volume of the mouthpuece in terms of consistancy. |
It is a combination of rim shape and the inaccuracies of measurement of rimsize from mouthpiece maker to maker. The feeling to you is what is important. There are players that feel the Curry 3 size and Wick 4 match. I am not one of them. For me the Curry 7 and Wick 4 match. I should note that I do have Wicks from 2 to 5 sizes and Curry 3 to 10.5 sizes for comparisons. |
I talked to sales @ Dillon Music & they explained that the Wicks rim is simply different from the Curry. They told me an apples to apples comparison would be two different Curry's of differing depth. They would have the same imprint feel on the embouchure.
BTW. I am getting very frustrated. Can't find anyone with the 7 FLM in stock. Also, maybe I'm playing too much & it's fatigue, but the 7 FL isn't working well. Maybe I should just go with the 10.5 & 8.5. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
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
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
|
