Mouthpieces most suitable for the Yamaha 642S

[JP]

I recently made an inquiry to Wick about a mouthpiece recommendation and received a response from Denis Wick himself! He said: "the most important aspect of mouthpiece choice is that it must suit the instrument." I have not been giving that a lot of consideration but I am now. So can anyone tell me what mouthpieces are well suited for the Yamaha 642S (not Neo)? I am in the 4 to 5 cup range and prefer a darker rather than brighter sound. Thanks much!

JP

[miketeachesclass]

Back when I owned a 642S, I played a standard SM3 by wick and felt that it worked well.

I also had played a 51D on it for quite some time, and it worked well also.

In the 4-5 cup range, I would start with one of the wick SM4 series and go from there. (SM4, SM4U, SM4X).

What have you been playing on?

Mike

I recently made an inquiry to Wick about a mouthpiece recommendation and received a response from Denis Wick himself! He said: "the most important aspect of mouthpiece choice is that it must suit the instrument." I have not been giving that a lot of consideration but I am now. So can anyone tell me what mouthpieces are well suited for the Yamaha 642S (not Neo)? I am in the 4 to 5 cup range and prefer a darker rather than brighter sound. Thanks much!

JP

[daruby]

JP,

I don't know what you are playing now (mouthpiece wise), but I would suggest you wait until you have connected with your teacher to make a selection. He/she can be an objective listener.

Doug

[davewerden]

Denis Wick is certainly correct about the mouthpiece matching the horn. That is partly why Adams makes the adjustable gap receiver standard equipment (so it can better mate the horn and mouthpiece combination).

BUT there is also a match necessary between the human and the mouthpiece! That's where Doug's advice about getting your teacher's opinion comes into play.

[JTJ]

The old 642 can be bright & loud. When I played one I found the original SM3 mitigated against those tendencies. Given your preferred cup width, I'd try the original SM4, might work.

John

[JP]

What have you been playing on?

Mike

Thanks Mike. I'm primarily playing on a Bach 5G now, but also have the Conn CKB 5G, Yamaha 53SH, and SM4X.

JP

[JP]

JP,

I don't know what you are playing now (mouthpiece wise), but I would suggest you wait until you have connected with your teacher to make a selection. He/she can be an objective listener.

Doug

Doug and Dave,

Thanks - good advice. That is what I shall do! I'm scheduled to hook up with her in early January.

JP

[JP]

The old 642 can be bright & loud. When I played one I found the original SM3 mitigated against those tendencies. Given your preferred cup width, I'd try the original SM4, might work.

John

Thanks John. I had an SM4 once. Probably should have kept it.

JP

[ghmerrill]

BUT there is also a match necessary between the human and the mouthpiece!

This is what really puzzled (shocked?) me about the statement that the fit of the mouthpiece to the instrument is the "most" important aspect. Sure, the shank has to fit into the receiver properly. And no, you definitely don't want to be using a contrabass trombone mouthpiece on a euphonium (at least for normal applications ) even if the shank fits. But this sort of "fit the instrument" criterion is what I tend to regard as a kind of "pre-condition" and wouldn't single out as the MOST important issue at all. And I don't think it provides any genuinely helpful guidance. It's a constraining condition concerning where to start with what mouthpieces to even consider. For any individual, a number of mouthpieces that satisfy THAT condition still won't be suitable, or at least certainly won't be "best".

Way too many people (in just my own personal experience with tuba players and bass trombone players) choose a mouthpiece that they feel "fits the instrument" best -- and end up with a mouthpiece that's typically too large for them and inhibits both the quality of their sound and their range. In the bass trombone community now, there in fact seems to be a retreat from what were previously regarded as appropriate mouthpieces for bass trombonists in terms of size (and "fitting the instrument"), but are now -- and I love this -- being referred to as "toilet bowl mouthpieces". So I think that whatever Denis Wick meant, the interpretation of "fit the instrument" needs some serious thought and interpretation since at least on its face it appears to exclude the player from the equation -- or to minimize his or her individual attributes and capabilities.