Matching a Mouthpiece to a Tuba (rather than chops)

[2nd tenor]

Recently I prepared an old Besson Imperial 4 valve Eb Bass for storage. The instrument got washed out, cleaned through with a suitable snake, dried out, oiled and greased, etc., it should be fine. I had a quick toot on it and thought how nicely it played through three and a bit octaves and all its four valves. The Imperials use a small shank mouthpiece and the instrument is owned by the Brass Band that I play in.

To check the Imperial out I used an old Kosicup type mouthpiece, it’s marked BBb and I got that mouthpiece for that Eb Imperial years ago off of eBay; the Kosicup replaced a Bass Trombone mouthpiece (a VB 1&1/4G IIRC) that that Imperial previously had supplied with it. Both sizes can do a job, the Bass Trombone mouthpiece helps players of smaller instruments either double on or move to Bass and the slightly larger Kossicup gives an improved sound and speaks better through the fourth valve. I also picked up a Wick small shank mouthpiece and was pleased with how that worked through the whole range too; because that’s what I normally use I thought that I’d picked up a Wick three but when I later checked it was a five.

Now here’s the thing; the Wick five has a small cup and by today’s standards the Kosicup has a small cup too. To get an Eb Sovereign to speak well through the fourth valve I need a Wick three and a Wick two is, to my ears, better again - but, of course, the bigger the cup the more demanding on the chops. Why is it that some older instruments like that Imperial play well with smaller cup mouthpieces? Why is it that a Bass Trombonist can pop out some very low notes and still use only a relatively (to Tuba) small mouthpiece piece? My conclusion - setting pitch to one side - is that the instrument’s bore impacts on what size of mouthpiece cup it needs in order to speak well. Of course the other variable in the equation is what size of mouthpiece cup the player can genuinely support.

As an aside, by way of example of varying chop strength, I’ve very happily used a Wick three for say the last five plus years but it was Wick four and five before then. In trials that happened a few years ago I tried a Bach eighteen and found it to be nice but slightly too demanding for prolonged use. With more established chops I’m now trying out a Wick two (similar in size to a Bach eighteen) and so far it’s working well for me. I like the simplicity of using the incremental sizes of one brand of mouthpiece.

With chops that will handle any size of piece needed how do members here decide what piece best matches what instrument?

[bloke]

It's great when a cup, throat, and back-bore (and obviously shank exterior size) seem really well-suited to an instrument, and (beyond those things) rim contour is what I (personally) mostly seek (as far as a mouthpiece being suited - to me). Many people view their embouchures as if they have a "dent" in them (which they may - due to excessive pressure, but that's beside the point) - whereby ONLY X rim contour and ONLY X opening space (for the lips to vibrate) will work for them..."because".

I've found that I can play most any tuba-sized cup-opening (the span between which the lips vibrate) as long as the rim is contoured in the way that (I've found) is most suited to me...so I play rims with interior opening sizes within nearly a 2mm range - for various types of tubas and tuba-related instruments.

I have a friend who is an accomplished (and name-droppingly-impressively schooled) trombonist who - even though he plays quite a bit of alto and some bass trombone (as accessory trombones) - and has "since forever", he's never played a smaller-than-.547" bore tenor. Recently, he acquired a (this requires a smaller back-bore, due to requiring small-shank trombone mouthpieces) .525" bore tenor trombone, and (at first) was pulling out his small shank mouthpiece with the same (quite wide) embouchure spacing built into the cup diameter. ...He was struggling when playing "high" and "high/pops" things (a couple of reasons why he decided to purchase the instrument). I pointed out to him that 6-1/2AL mouthpieces are legion, inexpensive, and that they work. He stuck one of those (sure: he had one) into the instrument and was immediately able to do those things (he desired to do with that instrument) with ease...ok: after a ten-minute acclimation to that mouthpiece.

...so I completely agree with you that there are mouthpieces that are really well-suited to INSTRUMENTS, and there are also RIM CONTOURS AND RIM INTERIOR CUP/EMBOUCHURE WIDTHS which are most well-suited to individual players with certain instruments.

so me...?? I tend to seek mouthpieces which ENHANCE (rather than defeat or override) the natural sonic characteristics of individual instruments...characteristics which attracted me to purchasing those particular individual instruments in the first place. Long ago (luckily), I figured out that mouthpieces - which are at the outside cup-size and throat-size range of "a mouthpiece which will still play a given instrument" are rarely the best choices for a given instrument (or for me - as the player of those instruments)

[Mary Ann]

Well there are horn players who can easily play into the tuba range with that tiny cup, so, hmmm, it must have something to do with embouchure?

The width of the vibrating aperture has to fit the cup. Those who can play any brass have developed an embouchure that is flexible in its ability to have the aperture vibrate properly at different widths. Narrow for smaller cups and wider for larger cups. I remember when I first took up tuba that I only got pffing sounds in the low register; it was really quite awful, and I was coming from horn and a little bit of euph. Over time my chops learned how to vibrate with a wider aperture and I became a tuba player. Then there was the time period during which if I had just played one (tuba,) the other (horn) didn't work very well. During that time, it worked better if I played horn first and then tuba. After another time period had passed, it didn't matter any more which came first. Not only aperture of course but use of air; some are just more flexible in that way than others, and everybody settles into what works for them. So the bass trombone guys can blast in that range because their embouchure functions extremely well at that aperture. The horn players have to have a four octave, at least, range in which that aperture can vibrate successfully, and that is *one* of the reasons why that instrument is more difficult than some others.

[Three Valves]

My lower range is not as inhibited by a smaller MP as a larger one inhibits the upper.

YMMV.

[acemorgan]

After reading these posts, I had to do some experimentation.

I have a small shank Eb that I have been using a Wick 5 on for some time now. The tuba's leadpipe is actually a recent retrofit which replaced the original leadpipe that was severely damaged. The Wick seats rather deeply, so it may not be a conventional small shank.

Because I like messing with things, a while back I decided to see if the KIng 25 that I used for 20 years on my BBb would fit. It did, but so what?

Well after reading these posts, I stuck the King back in and noted the results. The Eb has had a general level of muddiness that I attributed to its extreme age. With the King, the tone became more present and alive. It sounded more tuba-like in general. And the biggest surprise was the upper range: the notes above the staff have never sounded so good. I am amazed.

[2nd tenor]

Thank you all for the responses so far. I’m pleased that it has already had a positive result (in the post above).

Bloke nailed the concept I had in mind

there are mouthpieces that are really well-suited to INSTRUMENTS, and there are also RIM CONTOURS AND RIM INTERIOR CUP/EMBOUCHURE WIDTHS which are most well-suited to individual players with certain instruments.

[2nd tenor]

It’s possible to view the Tuba as a machine or sound generation system. If you want the best out of a particular machine then what you input into it has to match what it is designed to handle best. A course analogy would be the old fashioned hi-if system which was made out of various separate units some of which acted in an electronic chain, the inputs to each unit had to match what that unit could handle or else otherwise the output would be of reduced or even no value. None ideal input = reduced quality output.

I think it would be fair to say that mouthpiece selection is a bit of a ‘rabbit hole’, and then I made it more complicated by pointing out an often unconsidered and hard to quantify variable.

[GC]

My lower range is not as inhibited by a smaller MP as a larger one inhibits the upper.

YMMV.

^^This.^^

[bone-a-phone]

This bit about mouthpiece vs chops or horn is solved by modular mouthpieces. You get a rim to fit your face, cup to match the sound you want and a shank to fit the horn. I know there are those here who don't think much of the Doug Elliott mouthpieces, but his stuff has enabled me to play a wide range of tenor and bass trombones plus euph and tuba. I've been able to dial in each so my chops work with the different instruments. Without that system I was left buying unrelated mouthpieces playing a guessing game to see what piece worked with what horn and trying to shoehorn my chops in there. I keep the rims the same on all my small and large shank bones plus euph, with a range of cups and shanks to fit the specific horns. Bass bone gets a slightly larger rim (along with larger cup and shank} and then I use a contrabass tbone mouthpiece in my 3/4 size tuba, but still fitting the rim of my choice to my face.

I'm one of those who used to have a hard time switching to smaller mouthpieces, but seem to be able to move to larger pieces more easily. Using the DE stuff, I can move between any horn in any direction. It's better than random guessing or going on the dreaded mouthpiece safari quest. Doug really knows his stuff.