Chapter One

The Anatomy of a Mouthpiece

Discussion on the ways in which a mouthpiece functions and performs necessitates

full consideration of its construction. This chapter will consider how the various

components affect performance and how, by altering the dimensions and shape of

the components, varying degrees of change in performance occur. This is intended

to assist the reader in the discussions that are to follow. A glossary of terms related

specifically to the trumpet is located in Appendix 2.

Fig. 1.

Inner Bite Cup diameter

Outer Bite
Rim

Cup
Fig 1
Throat
Shoulder

Backbore

Shank

55
Figure 1 shows the various components of the mouthpiece. Each of these may be

changed in some way in manufacture, often by a minute degree, to affect the

performance or feel of the mouthpiece. When all the various options of change are

taken into account it has been argued that there are ‘over five million possible

variations of trumpet mouthpiece’ (McLaughlin 1995:38).

The Rim

The rim is that part of the mouthpiece that comes into contact with the lips. The rim

may be altered in width, contour and inner and outer bite.

Fig. 2
Inner Bite

Rim
Outer Bite

The Cup

The cup is the internal shape of the mouthpiece above the throat. The cup may be

altered in depth and contour (See figs. 3 – 8).

56
 Fig. 3. Fig. 4.

Shallow Medium

Fig. 5. Fig. 6.

Deep Cup- Shaped

Fig. 7. Fig. 8.

Bowl-Shaped V-Shaped

57
The Throat

This is the hole through the centre of the mouthpiece through which the air flows.

Throat sizes are most commonly measured in American drill sizes 1 and may vary

from size 20 to size 30, though, as will be seen later, there are exceptions.

The Backbore

This refers to the internal shape of the mouthpiece shank. The backbore may be

altered in shape to affect the playing characteristics of a mouthpiece.2 (See fig. 9.)

Fig. 9. Examples of backbore shape

Cup-Shape

Tight Straight Open Stepped (Zottola)

A list of the measurements of American drill sizes is available in Appendix 7. Although drill sizes are
used as a method of sizing throat measurements in trumpet mouthpieces, brass craftsman Joe
Marcinkiewicz is keen to make the point that: ‘Drills can be used for determining approximate size,
but are inadequate for manufacturing or modifying any mouthpieces’ ( Marcinkiewicz 1999:15)
2
With the exception of Zottola these backbore shapes are used in mouthpiece design by all mouthpiece
companies. The stepped design shown in fig.9d is unique to the range of mouthpieces produced by the
Zottola company.

58
The Shoulder

This is the point within the mouthpiece where the cup leads into the throat. The

severity of the angle of the shoulder depends to a large degree on the shape of the

cup.

Fig.10.

Smooth angle
of shoulder

Fig.11.

Acute angle
of shoulder

The Functions of the Rim

Due to the fact that this is the only part of the mouthpiece that comes into contact

with the player’s lips, it is essential that this is comfortable and that it also produces

optimum playing results. As Bernard Fitzgerald (1953:137), band director at the

University of Texas during the early 1950s, emphasises, ‘one of the most important

factors in selecting a suitable mouthpiece concerns the “feel of the rim” to the

player’.

59
The curvature and the width of the rim are understood to also be very important.

Bach (1979:3) states that ‘the brass instrument mouthpiece should have a medium-

wide rim’ and advises that ‘a player with a normal embouchure and fairly muscular

lips should give preference to a medium-wide rim’ (ibid: 4). As rim shape becomes

wider or narrower the playing characteristics are affected. Flexibility, that part of

technique that allows a player to move through the range of an instrument with

accuracy and ease, is an important requirement for trumpet players. 3 A narrow

rounded rim produces good flexibility, assists performance in the upper register and

enables greater control of slurs. However, if the rim becomes too rounded with little

or no sharpness to the inner edge then, despite its comfort on the lips, the player may

experience problems. As the rim becomes narrower and rounded the area of lip in

contact with the mouthpiece surface will tend to be reduced. This is an important

factor affecting endurance. A narrower and sharp mouthpiece is inclined to cut into

the lips, reducing blood circulation, which in turn deprives the muscles of oxygen.

Fatigue, an area of major concern for trumpet players, then sets in. In short,

increasing the dimensions of the rim produces increased comfort and endurance

while reducing flexibility.

Over the years, a considerable number of players appear to have found that although

certain problems may arise in using a wide flat rim, the advantages outweigh the

disadvantages. Louis Armstrong is just one example of a trumpet player who used an

extremely wide rim throughout most of his playing career.4 (See Fig.12)

3 Fig.12.
An explanation of flexibility is provided Louis
on page 54. Armstrong
4
The many photographs in existence of Louis Armstrong show that he played on many different
models of mouthpiece. The Parduba Compnay leaflet states that he used a Parduba mouthpiece
c.1938-40. The mouthpiece in the photograph in fig.12. appears to be a Giardinelli 10SW, a fact
confirmed by instrument specialist David Davies from Leeds (Davies interview).

60
 Fig. 12.

The subject of wide rim mouthpieces and how they can help certain players is one

addressed by American trumpeter Bobby Shew who has been influential on the

design of many of his student’s mouthpieces. Discussing custom-built mouthpieces

he places great importance on the width of the rim, especially in the cases of players

with large, full lips or those experiencing endurance problems.5 He emphasises the

importance of positioning the mouthpiece rim on the muscle area surrounding the

lips (the lock-in area) and not the lip membrane (the vibrating surface) (See figs. 13-

17)

In this setting the

5
mouthpiece
These comments were made to me during lessons that I took with Bobby Shewis between 1988 –
1995. ‘locked-in’ to the
muscles above and
61
below the lips
 Fig.13.

This setting means

that the mouthpiece
Fig.14. touches very little of
the muscle area
above the top lip.

In this setting the

mouthpiece is resting
only on the red part of
Fig 15. the lips (membrane)
and is not touching the
muscle area.

Moving the mouthpiece

down to ‘lock- in’ on the
muscle area below the
bottom lip causes
Fig.16.
problems for the top lip.

The player in figs 15, 16

& 17 has fuller lips. The
problems shown in figs.
Fig 17 15 & 16 are rectified by
using an extra wide rim
as shown in fig 17.

Shew refers to several cases of black trumpet students who were encountering

serious problems of stamina. They were using average size mouthpieces with average

62
width rims. Shew arranged for custom-made mouthpieces with extra wide rims to be

produced.6 After switching to much wider rims their problems were greatly reduced.

Fig.13 shows a player with thin lips. In this example the mouthpiece is placed in the

centre of the lips with equal amounts of mouthpiece on the top and bottom lips.

There has been much debate as to the optimum placement of the mouthpiece, in

particular on the amount of top lip versus bottom lip on which the mouthpiece rests.

Bach (1925:25) is resolute in his opinion that:

For trumpet or cornet the mouthpiece should be placed one-third on

the upper lip and two-thirds on the lower lip in the exact center of
the mouth if possible. This is very important and the only correct
way of playing …There are teachers who advise the placing of the
mouthpiece one-half on the lower lip and one-half on the lower lip
and others who recommend that two-thirds of the mouthpiece be on
the upper lip and one-third on the lower. In such instances they are
absolutely wrong. By using more of the upper lip it is possible to
produce a larger volume in the lower register but the high tones are
sacrificed and so also is the endurance …

According to Bach at least, it can be seen that the mouthpiece placement in Fig.13 is

a good setting. Fig.14 shows the same player with the same mouthpiece but with

only a very small amount of top lip being used on the mouthpiece. As a result of

stamina problems that are likely to occur with this type of embouchure setting, it

would almost certainly be discouraged. Figs.15 and 16 show a player with much

fuller lips resulting in the rim of the mouthpiece not being in contact with the

muscles that surround the lip membrane (the red part). Fig.15 illustrates that only the

red part of the lips are in contact with the rim. As can be seen in Fig.16, because of

the fuller lips of the player, attempts to rectify this problem by moving the rim down

fail to produce a satisfactory setting. A change in the design of mouthpiece used may
6
The production of these mouthpieces was made possible by Joe Marcinkiewicz at his Burbank
factory.

63
solve the problem in this example. Figure 17 shows how using a mouthpiece with an

extra wide rim may help to rectify the embouchure problem highlighted in figs. 15

and 16.

While the size of the rims used to solve the problems experienced by Shew’s students

may have been extreme, the occurrence of the problem of playing on the lip

membrane, whilst not common, certainly does appear to be one that deserves

attention. In recognising the importance of mouthpiece size in relation to

embouchures Vincent Malek7 (1953), a student at Northwestern University, set out to

determine if cornet and trumpet mouthpieces could be selected with reasonable

assurance that the model chosen was compatible, regarding excellence of

performance, with the physical features of the player’s embouchure. Malek’s study

was based on the assumption that ‘a relatively small group of mouthpieces were

better suited to a specific type of embouchure than were any of the other innumerable

models available.’(1953:1). Commenting on the results of a sample he had taken

Malek remarked that:

As far as lip thickness is concerned, just as many players in the

sample had thick lips as had thin ones - with the vast majority
having lips of average thickness. This certainly suggests that the
old belief that thin lips for trumpet-cornet are best, is not
necessarily true. If it were, natural selection would have favoured
thin lips in the study (1954:188).

One alternative to ensure that players with large lips play on the muscles around the

lip rather than on the lip membrane is to ‘tuck-in’ or roll in the lips. However, this

technique reduces the vibrating surface of the lips and makes good tone production

more difficult to achieve.

7
In 1969 Malek was head of the music department at Northeastern University Chicago and former
editor of the Instrumentalist Journal.

64
The photographs in figures 18 – 23 offer illustrations of various embouchures

amongst professional players and how they relate to the problems discussed and to

those examples illustrated on the previous pages.

Fig.18. John Critchley Fig.19. Shorty Rogers

Fig.20. Conte Candoli Fig.21. Don Cherry

Fig.22. Donald Byrd Fig. 23. Lee Morgan

65
 Embouchures shown in figures 18 – 23

Fig. 18. – very little contact with the muscle area above the top lip.
Fig. 19. – very little contact with the muscle area below the bottom lip.
Fig. 20. – good contact with muscle area above and below lips.
Fig. 21. – almost no contact with muscle area around lips. Rim rests
almost totally on lip membrane.
Fig. 22. – very little contact with muscle area above top lip
Fig. 23. – good contact with muscle area above and below lips

High Point

The part of the rim that first comes in to contact with the lips is referred to as the

high point (see fig.24.). Schilke (1966:429) has pointed to the location of the high

point as ‘another variable that should be kept in mind’ as it ‘changes the feel of the

width of the cup.’ Once again, altering the placement of this feature may affect

performance.

A high point placed to the inner edge of the rim has the effect of making the

mouthpiece feel narrower whilst in truth the actual rim measurement may be wide.

The opposite is also true (see figs. 24 –26)

Fig.24.
High Point of
the Rim

66
 Fig.25.
High Point of
the Rim

High Point
Fig.26.
of the Rim

These features have been incorporated in mouthpiece design either at the request of

individual players or as a remedy for players experiencing embouchure problems. A

good example is the range of mouthpieces produced by Neil Sanders and designed in

the 1970s in collaboration with Peter Pollard of Music Parts UK. One of the

intentions of these mouthpieces is to address the problems that young players, in

67
particular, experience when they are required to wear permanent teeth braces for

extended periods of time. Naturally they should not suspend playing for two years,

though many do, yet the discomfort of a mouthpiece pressing against the brace fitted

to the teeth is debilitating. The Sanders mouthpiece with the ‘high point’ moved to

the outer edge of the rim addresses the problem without having to resort to a

mouthpiece with a much wider rim (see fig.27.).

Fig. 27.

The Sanders mouthpiece moves the

high point from here, thus providing
relief to the damaged embouchure or
problem area.

High Point
of Rim

In effect, what the design of the Sanders mouthpiece does for the player is to switch

the point of highest mouthpiece pressure to a place beyond the discomfort area. As

Pollard confirms:

The mouthpiece range was designed for players with embouchure

problems and has proved to be very successful, particularly in
America. Basically it has an inverted rim. The design moves the
contact point away from the damaged or problem area allowing the

68
 tissue damage chance to recover. In this respect the mouthpiece is
not seen as a permanent thing (personal communication, February
1998).

The Sanders company also incorporated the use of this rim into a design of

mouthpiece for French horn (see figs.28 and 29). Notorious for their very narrow,

sharp rims French horn mouthpieces often cause problems for beginners. According

to Pollard, the Sanders mouthpiece has proved to be very effective amongst teachers

and young players and in this respect they earned the nickname ‘potty-trainer’.

Commenting on the Sanders mouthpiece, professional horn player John Erikson

(2003:3) stated:

I found this mouthpiece (Sanders 17m) to be useful during a period

when I had a lip injury and some teachers also find this mouthpiece
useful in working on embouchure changes.

Conventional French
Fig.28. horn mouthpiece with
narrow rim and
narrow cup diameter

69
 Fig. 29.
Sanders French horn
mouthpiece with the
high point to the
outer edge. This has
the effect of making
the cup diameter
appear wider to the
player

Cup Diameter

Trumpeters, teachers, designers and manufacturers have generated an almost endless

array of comments about the effects of depth of the cup and the diameter of the cup,

i.e. the space between the sides of the inner edge of the rim (see fig.30.)

Fig.30.

70
 Diameter of Cup

Depth of Cup

Schilke, to take just one example, remarks that:

A small or shallow cup produces the brightest sound and aids in
playing high notes while a larger deeper cup aids in producing the
lower tones and produces a richer, darker sound (1966:282).

A great deal of advice exists from designers, manufacturers and teachers on the size

and type of mouthpiece a player should choose. Bach (1972, 1979, 1989) Endsley

(1992), Marcinkiewicz (1999), Monette (2000), Parke (n.d), Reeves (1998) Schilke

(1966) Stork (1989), and Yamaha (2003) are amongst a long list of companies

publishing advice on mouthpieces. In terms of mouthpiece selection, Richard

Rajewski (1989:7), a brass specialist and employee of the Michigan Instrument

Company, comments:

It is generally accepted that a player should use the largest diameter

that he can handle in order to produce a large volume of tone with
good quality…the player should choose the diameter that allows
him to perform with the most comfort. The diameter chosen will
enable the player to achieve good musical results and perform
properly on the job.
In contrast, New York based brass craftsman and mouthpiece designer Jerry Callet

advocates the use of narrower cups:

It is definitely more effective to have a mouthpiece with a narrower

inside diameter. It is possible to get just as much sound from a
mouthpiece with a narrower inner as a wide inner measurement
(personal communication May 1999).

71
Mouthpiece designer and manufacturer Phyllis Stork, however, cautions against the

use of cups that are too narrow:

If the inner diameter is too small, the rim will sit on the inner red
portion of the lips. This can be quite debilitating (Stork quoted in
Moorehead Libs 1994:43).

The caution issued by Stork refers to a completely different issue to the one that

Shew was addressing. Shew’s concern was that the outer rim of the mouthpiece

should be positioned on the muscle around the lips and not the red membrane. Stork

is concerned with the inner rim restricting the red part of the lip from vibrating.

While little written evidence has been found to dispute the statements regarding the

use of a wide diameter cup, there are many examples of players who have

exclusively used mouthpieces with narrow cups. Harry James, Maynard Ferguson,

and Eddie Calvert, three of the best-known trumpet players of all time, each

possessed a very distinctive, much sought after tone and all three played on

mouthpieces with narrow cups (see figs.31, 32, 33). Contrary to much of the advice

on the type of tone a narrow mouthpiece will produce, Ferguson’s tone was often

described as being ‘massive’, ‘fat’ and ‘huge’.

I remember him playing a double E flat on top of the band. It

sounded like fifteen trumpet players standing in a row playing the
note at the same time. That is how HUGE it was! (Soloff quoted in
Lee 1997:vii).

I had never heard a sound that big, ever! (Brecker quoted in Lee 1997:viii)

Figs.31a and 31b. Eddie Calvert’s mouthpiece made by

A.Turtle Manchester (Courtesy of Lisa Calvert)

72
 Figs.32a and 32b. Harry James mouthpiece
(double cup)
made by the Parduba Company

Fig.33a and 33b.

One of the mouthpieces used by Maynard Ferguson .
Ferguson -Bell model

Ernie Garside, Maynard Ferguson’s manager during the 1960s and 1970s stated:

I have inspected mouthpieces of many of the great trumpet players

from the history of jazz. I can think of very few who have used
wide cupped mouthpieces. Often deep, but rarely wide. Raphael
Mendes the virtuoso player used a small mouthpiece. So did
Sweets,8 Conte Candoli and Clark Terry. Clifford Brown used a
Bach 17c (personal communication, February 1998).

8
‘Sweets’ was the nickname for trumpeter Harry Edison

73
Working on the advice of mouthpiece companies, trumpet students, in search of a

bigger, richer tone, would understandably choose a bigger, deeper mouthpiece.

However, if a student then considers the mouthpiece choice of the players named

above, a state of much confusion would surely develop.

Classification of Mouthpiece Sizes

The different methods that mouthpiece companies use to identify their products,

causes a great deal of confusion amongst both players and teachers. Some companies

such as Bach, Marcinkiewicz and Warburton use a numbering system from 1 up to

around 20, where 1 represents the largest mouthpiece and 20 represents the smallest.

Others such as Yamaha and Schilke do exactly the opposite where 1 identifies the

smallest mouthpiece. Some companies such as Zottola have a system different again

and identify their mouthpiece models with numbers from 62 – 66. In order to identify

other features such as backbore, cup depth and rim shape, a combination of

additional numbers, various letters, and stars are often added, resulting in a situation

of great complexity and confusion where only experts are able to state with certainty

the meaning of a particular mouthpiece model number. This lack of standardisation,

described by North-western University student Richard Hoffman (1955:1) as ‘a field

of nebulous facts and figures and a subject of mystery to the student and consumer’,

has been an area of concern for some considerable time.

As long ago as November 1952 Traugott Rohner discussed this lack of

standardisation of sizes:

Teachers, manufacturers and players of brass instruments are

agreed that there is an urgent need for standardization and
classification of mouthpieces. It is high time, they believe, that we
apply scientific measures to a subject long engulfed in surmises,
inconsistencies and hocus-pocus. We need to replace fancy with

74
 facts, guessing by knowing and inexcusable inaccuracies with
scientifically accurate measurements (Rohner 1952:75).

Hoffman, who researched this lack of standardisation within the industry in 1955,

concurs with Rohner stating:

A mouthpiece of one manufacturer may vary considerably in many

ways from the same kind of mouthpiece of another manufacturer.
Indeed, even two of the same make and kind of mouthpiece of
supposedly the same dimensions may vary in one or more respects.
Ostensibly there is no standard table of measurements by which
these mouthpieces are made (1955:1).

Further comment by Rohner is equally applicable today as it was in 1952:

The numbering and lettering systems used for brass instruments are
almost as numerous as the number of manufacturers. Thus, it is not
possible to select mouthpieces intelligently (1952:75).

To have a situation where shoe manufacturers insist on their own methods of sizing

their products is unthinkable and yet, as bizarre as this may appear, it is the situation

that actually exists in the brass mouthpiece world.

Fifty years on from the comments made by Rohner and Hoffman, this confusing

situation still exists for brass players. However, whilst this is frustrating for the

customer it may work to the advantage of the manufacturer, increasing choice and

variance. Additionally, it may encourage the purchase of more mouthpieces because

players are in pursuit of the subtle changes that they believe exist between the

designs of various manufacturers. This kind of attitude towards mouthpiece selection

appears to have led to a culture where some players have become so obsessed with

mouthpieces that they seem to constantly search without any real purpose. It even

appears as though a kind of one-up-man-ship exists where players boast about how

they have self customised their mouthpiece by altering its dimensions, possibly by

enlarging the size of the throat, making it perform better than any other. Invariably by

75
the following week the ruined mouthpiece is discarded, for the whole process to be

repeated a few weeks later. This was observed on numerous occasions during this

research and is clearly a feature of trumpet playing that guarantees continued sales.

It is possible that the literature produced by mouthpiece companies nurtures this kind

of obsessive behaviour in trumpet players and in doing so actually trades on

certain desires or cravings. By far the biggest craving in trumpet players relates

to high notes, a subject that is constantly raised at trumpet seminars. An

indication of the extent of this desire in trumpet players is provided by referring

to the many seminars by Bobby Shew, Allen Vizzuttu, Jon Faddis, Maynard

Ferguson, Dennis Noday and others that I have attended that since 1985. On

every occasion questions on playing in the high register have been raised and

without exception these have totally dominated the proceedings. Mouthpiece

company literature often seems to contain descriptions aimed at players trying to

develop their high register playing, as the following examples illustrate:

Very shallow cup for easy high notes (Yamaha c.2003.:11).

Relatively large throat diameter with a sharp shoulder, bright sound

with easy high notes (Yamaha c.2003.11).

A small shallow “A” cup with cushion #4 rim for extremely high
register work (Schilke .n.d.:10).

The combination of the shallow “A” cup, semi-flat #4 rim and tight
“a” backbore aids an extremely high register (Schilke n.d.:10).

For players who must use a large mouthpiece but want an easier
high register (Bach 1979:18).

The upper register is very easy and the sound is rich and sparkling
(Monette 2000:18).

76
Within promotional trumpet mouthpiece literature manufacturers often state that their

designs are able to satisfy the cravings of trumpet players for good tone and

endurance. For example:

Produces a great volume of tone of brilliant timbre (Bach 1979:18).

Produces a rich, clear tone of substantial body (Bach 1979:19).

Well defined rim bite for easy blowing and extended endurance
(Yamaha c.2003:11).

Fairly deep cup, with rich, mellow tone. A dark sound that is ideal
for orchestra players (Yamaha n.d.:11).

Higher alpha angle, lots of edge, great projection, good upper

register with a full core to the sound (GR Technologies 2001:6).

The shallower cups are noted for their brilliant tone quality without
sacrificing the low register (Bush c.2001:1).

It offers a bright, projecting sound that is great for lead players and
outdoor work (Warburton n.d.:1).

In order to promote their products mouthpiece companies have to generate as much

interest as possible. Whilst some of the information provided by the brochures

and manuals is undoubtedly helpful it appears from observations and comments

made during this research that much of the information generates confusion

especially amongst amateur and student players.

I really thought that these mouthpieces were going to work for me.
From the descriptions they seemed to be just what I was looking
for. So I bought three, all similar sizes, because they were
supposed to help my range and stamina. It seems as though I
wasted my money. They are all too shallow and the inner rims are
too sharp for me – my old mouthpiece works much better for me
(Carty personal communication, 2000).

Depth of Cup

Of all the components of a mouthpiece, cup depth appears to receive the most

comment and attention. For the purpose of this discussion cup depth will be referred

77
to as shallow, medium and deep.9 However, it is important to recognise that there is

an extremely large number of cup depths available when selecting mouthpieces.

Endsley (1992) lists the deepest at 0.800" and the shallowest at 0.340". As with all

the other components the effects generated by changes in cup depth are also

influenced by the many variables in lips and teeth formation. Descriptions provided

on the effects of changes in cup depth should therefore be considered as

generalisations.

The deeper cups produce a ‘darker’ tone when compared to the shallow cups which

produce a brighter, more strident and cutting sound with increased endurance

(McLaughlin 1995:30). In his research on the effect of various mouthpieces on

trumpet tones, Robert Hallquist (1979) refers to ‘resonance curves’ recorded by John

Backus, a noted authority on musical acoustics at the University of Southern

California.10 In his experiments Backus had obtained resonance curves by injecting

an acoustic signal into a trumpet mouthpiece. By the use of a microphone mounted in

the mouthpiece he was able to record the pressure response of the air column of the

9
In terms of measurements, the depth of mouthpieces in these categories would be in the region of:
shallow = 0.400 inches, medium = 0.500 inches, deep =0.600 inches. Mouthpieces outside these
measurements are rare. A mouthpiece with a depth of 0.386 (a Jet Tone Al Hirt model) would be
considered very shallow, while a mouthpiece with a depth of 0.723 (a Yamaha 15E4) would be
considered very deep (Endsley 1992:25-33).
10
A resonance curve records the pattern of response of a resonant circuit, instrument or object when
stimulated over a range of the parameter being measured. Normally the term applies to a measurement
of the frequency response (http://www2.sfu.ca/sonic-studio/handbook/Resonance_Curve.html).

78
trumpet to that signal. Backus made tests on three mouthpieces 11: a Vincent Bach 1½

C (large), a Vincent Bach 7C (medium) and a Vincent Bach 10½ C (small).

Commenting on the results obtained from the tests, Hallquist (1979:39) noted that

although the resonance curves may look identical upon first glance, each mouthpiece

produces a slightly different pattern of resonance. Hallquist concludes:

Dynamics and pitch seem to affect the observable differences

between mouthpieces. In general, as the dynamic level increases,
the observable differences in the mouthpiece decreases. There also
seems to be a greater difference in mouthpieces on lower pitches
than on higher pitches…Changing mouthpieces did not affect the
players in the same way. Player differences seem to contribute
substantially to the harmonic content of the tone (1979:106).

Clearly there are some areas of common ground between Hallquist’s work and this

thesis, however, the two differ fundamentally in their methods of producing and

recording the signal. In the case of Hallquist he cites tests that relied on electronic

means to both produce the signal and record the effects. In this thesis the sounds (the

signals) were produced by musicians and the responses to them were recorded by a

live audience. Furthermore, in this thesis no use is made of electronic equipment to

analyse trumpet tone.

Due to the fact that there are several sizes of trumpet in use in orchestral music (for

example, B, C, D, E, and piccolo) players do tend to use smaller shallower

mouthpieces for work that involves smaller bore instruments. John MacMurray,

principal trumpet of the Hallé Orchestra, explained that he uses a large mouthpiece

11
The measurements of these mouthpieces are as follows:
Vincent Bach 1½C. Inside cup diameter 0.671 inches, outside cup diameter 1.080 inches. Depth of
cup 0.541 inches
Vincent Bach 7C. Inside cup diameter 0.655 inches, outside cup diameter 1.060 inches. Depth of
cup 0.562 inches
Vincent Bach 10½C. Inside cup diameter 0.624 inches, outside cup diameter 1.052 inches. Depth of
cup 0.483 inches

79
(Bach 1¼ C) on his B trumpet and a medium mouthpiece (Bach 3C) when playing C

trumpet. American trumpeter John Aley added:

I use different mouthpieces on the different horns ... I have to. I

wouldn’t dream of using a big mouthpiece on this (a piccolo); it’s
madness to try when you have to play music as demanding as this
(personal communication, May 1999).

In short, Aley was making use of mouthpieces designed to do specific jobs on

specific instruments, all of which in theory, at least, should to some degree make
playing the trumpet easier.

Functions of the Backbore

The backbore of a mouthpiece (see fig.1. and fig.9.) is another component of the

mouthpiece that has attracted considerable debate within the trumpet playing

fraternity. The backbore is a major part of the airway of the mouthpiece that forms

the acoustical channel through which the lips communicate with the air column of

the instrument and is responsible, to a large degree, for controlling the resistance and

tone (McLaughlin 1995:32). The characteristics attributed to a tight backbore are

enhanced control, increased resistance, increased endurance and assistance in the

upper register producing a brilliant, more cutting tone but less-full sound. A more

open backbore will tend to produce a bigger, darker sound but reduces the endurance

(Warburton n.d.4, Yamaha c.2003:6). It may also inhibit the upper range and give

less control. Trumpetstudio.com (1998) credits the 'Custom Supertight Backbore'

Schilke 12A4a mouthpiece as supercharging the air as it passes through the

mouthpiece. Callet describes the backbore as critical and states that

…its shape and size can help in your endurance, make your tone
fall dead before it leaves the stage, or project it beautifully out to
the last row in the balcony. Also, for a real quality trumpet tone in
all registers, a proven backbore shape is needed (quoted in Ickes
1977:11).

80
Schilke (n.d.:3) refers to a lack understanding by players of the importance of the

shape of the backbore and confirms that the tighter the backbore, the more brilliant

the sound and the larger the backbore, the mellower the sound. Quite what level of

understanding players have of the technicalities and implications of differing sizes

and shapes of backbore, is difficult, if not impossible, to assess. Part of the problem

according to Schilke (n.d.:3) is that the backbore is not so readily visible to the naked

eye. Based on visual inspection only, it is almost impossible for anyone to state with

absolute certainty the exact size and shape of the backbore. Backbore function is,

however, complicated by other issues. Bach (1989:8) for example, in questioning the

use of the terms large and small in relation to backbore size states that:

It is not actually possible to identify backbores by size alone

because they also vary in shape and rate of taper. Various
combinations of size, shape and rate of taper make the tone darker
or more brilliant, raise or lower the pitch in one of more registers,
increase or decrease volume.

The complicated issues surrounding the backbore design appear to be acknowledged

by most of the designers and manufacturers. In addition to offering mouthpieces with

a variety of backbore styles most make detailed comment on the subject. Warburton

for example, produce a range of mouthpieces where the backbore section may be

purchased separately. The Warburton (n.d.6) publicity states that their backbore sizes

complement the cup designs and further assist in the refinement and fine-tuning of

the sound. Based on the information from the mouthpiece manufacturers (Bach 1989,

Callet 1990, Schilke n.d., Warburton n.d), backbore design appears to be largely

dependant on the relationship and balance between the other mouthpiece

components, as well as the instruments on which the mouthpiece is to be used, the

playing situation and the player. With this in mind each case has to be considered

81
independently. What suits one player will almost certainly not suit another. The size

of the mouthpiece as Van Cleave puts it ‘is like your shoe size’ (1994:3).

Functions of the Throat

The throat size, sometimes referred to as the bore, is measured and referred to in

American drill sizes. These vary from size 20 (large) to size 30 (the small) though

throat measurements outside these sizes also exist. Surprisingly perhaps, ‘extreme’

sizes have been used by some of the world’s leading players. For example, Maynard

Ferguson’s mouthpiece during the mid to late 1990s had a throat size 19, Art

Farmer’s flumpet12 mouthpiece, a size 15. Even considering the fact that the

flumpet’s sound is intended to be much mellower than the trumpet’s sound, a size 15

throat is extremely large. While working for the Schilke Company, Scott Laskey

produced a mouthpiece for Jon Faddis with a size 30 throat. Responding to the

question of why Faddis would want to use such a small throat Laskey commented:

When Faddis comes to me and says “I want my sound to be more

this or that” he doesn’t tell me what to do with the rim, throat
backbore or whatever, that’s my job (personal communication May
1999).

Consideration of the tones, both in recorded and live performance, that these three

players produce would in the case of Jon Faddis reveal an edgy, brilliant and perhaps

piercing tone, while Maynard Ferguson and Art Farmer, whose tones are certainly

very full, both appear to experience intonation problems in the upper register. Ernie

12
The flumpet is an instrument invented and produced by Oregon based craftsman Dave Monette who
was also responsible for the production Wynton Marsalis’ instruments and mouthpieces. The flumpet
was designed to produce a tone mid-way between flugel and trumpet. Few Players use the instrument.
Only the late Art Farmer and British trumpeter Guy Barker have appeared to use the instrument on a
regular basis.

82
Garside, who travelled with all three musicians as recently as summer 1999,

confirms this fact:

In recent years both Maynard’s mouthpiece and the one used by Art
in his flumpet had extremely large throats - 17 in Maynard’s and 15
for Art. From my observations, I’m sure larger throats generally
produce a fuller sound but I did notice that Maynard and Art were
tending to play flat on the higher notes. Having said that it’s only
fair to mention that these mouthpieces were to some degree still in
the development stage (personal communication, July 2000).

Views on the effects created by altering the size of the throat appear to differ. Vincent

Bach, the best known of all brass mouthpiece and instrument makers, does not agree,

for example, with the use of a small throat to assist high note playing:

Some players imagine that if they use a mouthpiece with a small

throat, they can get healthy high notes more easily, but just the
reverse is true (Bach 1972:603).

The Gap

The ‘gap’ refers to the point where the mouthpiece shank meets the mouthpiece

receiver. The tapered shape of the shank allows the mouthpiece to travel a specific

distance into the leader pipe. Mouthpieces are constructed in such a way so as to take

into consideration the size of the gap. Thus the gap may be present in varying

degrees from one mouthpiece to another or eliminated altogether. However, once a

mouthpiece has been produced the size of the gap remains constant.13

Another important, yet highly contentious issue in mouthpiece design surrounds the

effectiveness of the ‘gap’ between the end of the mouthpiece shank and the end of

the mouthpiece receiver (see figs. 34 and 35).

13
Fig.34. Cross section of mouthpiece and leader pipe showing no gap
Whilst the vast majority of mouthpieces offer no opportunity to vary the size of the gap, recent
developments have meant that mouthpieces are now available in which the size of the gap can be
adjusted. One company to offer such a facility in their mouthpiece designs is Jeff Parke based in Los
Angeles. The product name of this mouthpiece system is ‘Dial a Gap’.

83
 Receiver No Gap Lead Pipe

Fig.35. Cross section of mouthpiece and leader pipe showing a gap

Receiver

Gap Lead Pipe

A mass of conflicting information, theories and advice exists on the gap. Designers,

manufacturers and players have widely differing views as to the effectiveness of the

gap. American (USA) mouthpiece designer Clifford Blackburn and Dennis Fleisher

of the University of Rochester New York, provide the following comments:

Some say there should be no gap while others insist that some gap
is essential. I feel that there should be a gap but that the optimum
dimension will usually vary from player to player (Blackburn
1978:12).

The effect of a gap alteration on trumpet response was found to be

register dependent. Specifically, as the gap length decreases the low
register response improves and concurrently the high register
response diminishes. This was found to be true up to and including
the point where the gap was eliminated. Conversely, as the gap
length is increased (up to a maximum of 8.90mm in this study -

84
 Fleisher’s study) the upper register response improves while the
low register response is diminished (Fleisher 1982:17).

Los Angeles-based designer Bob Malone is in no doubt about the importance of the

gap:

The gap that usually exists between the end of the mouthpiece and
the venturi of the leadpipe is very important. This is one of the
most critical areas on the trumpet. The gap, in concert with the size
and shape of the venturi of the pipe, has an effect on virtually every
aspect of the trumpet (Malone quoted in Moorehead Libs 1994:44).

However, despite the strength of this statement from a respected authority on

mouthpiece design, the importance of the gap is contested. Renold Schilke, another

highly respected mouthpiece designer, has expressed an opposing opinion.

The two should meet. To correct the deficiency, the shank is turned
down somewhat on a lathe so that it will be small enough to meet
the end of the mouthpipe. A marked improvement in the playing of
the instrument is thereby effected (Schilke 1952:73).

The existence of such conflicting theories emphasises the complicated and confusing

situation that trumpet players face when considering mouthpiece selection. Rather

than clearing up areas of concern for players, it appears that the presence of differing

expert advice contributes to the amount of discussion on mouthpieces. A large

number of mouthpiece related questions regularly appear on trumpet information

websites14, these and the many questions that were asked at trumpet seminars during

the period of this study are an indication of the volume of advice that trumpeters

seek.

14

Examples of trumpet related websites listing frequently asked questions are: www.warburton-
usa.com/faq.htm, www.blackburntrumpets.com/faq.html and www.callet.com/question.htm.

85
Despite the amount of debate centring on the various design elements there has been

a comparatively small amount of academic research on the subject. Existing

academic studies on this subject have tended not to focus solely on the design

elements of the mouthpiece itself but in certain cases on the way in which physical

differences between individual musicians should inform their choice of mouthpieces.

This subject provided the focal point for research by Marion Jacobs (1939) in which

she queried whether cup mouthpieces should be constructed and fitted especially for

each individual player. Acknowledging the work of mouthpiece specialist Harry L.

Jacobs, Marian Jacobs (1939:2) stated:

Proof was made that there were many who were helped beyond
measure. This help was possible only through scientific study,
years of research and years of experience in building mouthpieces
with curved rims to fit the individual. To the investigator, it seems
that most brass players need this assistance to become more
proficient and to receive more pleasure from their work.

Much of the research by Marian Jacobs was based on information gathered from

questionnaire work with trumpet players. Jacobs (1939:17) records that the players

made few criticisms of mouthpieces in use. However, of those criticisms made the

main one was that the mouthpieces have no individual qualities and that the rim was

a non-fitting one. Additionally, it was evident that many professional musicians use

special mouthpieces. From the questionnaires Jacobs (1939:18) concluded that

embouchures would be helped if players chose mouthpieces that suited their own

physical characteristics.

In considering the subject of mouthpieces designed specifically for individuals, in

other words custom-made, it is interesting to note that Jacob (1939:24) comments:

Many of our great instrumentalists have designed mouthpieces for

themselves and have had instrument manufacturers make them for
the public. It is astonishing that many of these are not exact

86
 reproductions and are only a means of making money from the
ignorance of amateurs or semi-professional players.

In making reference to the differing physical characteristics of players, Jacob

(1939:25) points to problems that they may face as a result of handicaps that arise
by nature.

In support of her claims, Jacobs quotes Vincent Bach on trumpet and mouthpiece

construction:

Few musicians realise the value of a scientifically constructed

mouthpiece. An instrument is often condemned for being hard
blowing or out of tune when the fault lies solely in the mouthpiece
being used (Bach 1925:3).

Additionally, she makes further reference to Harry L. Jacobs who had written to her

stating:

…my honest opinion is that there never has been, is not now, nor
will there ever be a player, who would not find some advantage in
using a curve rim mouthpiece, if and it is a big IF, of course, if the
curve, or uneven rim, accurately met his need as to correct fitting
(ibid.:139:38).

Jacobs is clearly of the opinion that since musicians do not generally possess

characteristics perfectly suited for the performance of musical instruments and more

specifically brass instruments, in most cases it is not possible for the lips to make all

the adjustments necessary to cope with an ill fitting straight rim mouthpiece. Jacobs

(1939:48) concludes:

…that a mouthpiece to be good, must be individually good and if it

is not individually good then it is not a good mouthpiece … there is
only one mouthpiece and that is the one the individual can use to
the best advantage.

The contoured or hyperbolic mouthpiece (a mouthpiece with a curved rim) designed

to help those players with extremes in shape of jaw (see fig.36.) has received much

attention over the years. The mouthpiece is intended to improve the contact with the

87
surface and shape of the embouchure: to provide a more balanced setting. Opinions

as to the effectiveness of this type of mouthpiece vary.

Fig.36. Mouthpiece
with contoured rim

Contoured mouthpieces, those with rims curved to fit the arch of

the teeth, were not found to be necessary or desirable by the players
in the sample (Giardinelli 1972:605).

I know of no one who is making these anymore. It might be that

they were part of some wild experiment to build a more effective
mouthpiece and it just might’ve worked for some. I’ve never
known anyone who successfully played on one but because I’ve
never seen it, it doesn’t mean that it never happened …obviously
(Shew 2000:5).

Discussion of the physical characteristics of players and the problems that may

result from those characteristics, naturally leads to reference on the research in the

area of orthodontia and in turn that leads directly to consideration of the

embouchure.

In his research into dento-facial irregularity, Norman Hunt (1948:8) refers to

comments made by Cheney and Hughes (1946:379):

88
 It appears that there are a great many irregularities of the jaw, the
teeth, the lips and associated structures which we must consider
when studying their role in the development of embouchure. This is
especially true when we realise that the majority of people have
dento-facial irregularity of some type.

Clearly, teeth formation and jaw position play a crucial part in the formation of a

good embouchure: one that functions correctly. The teeth and jaw play such a major

role in providing what is in effect a foundation for the formation of an embouchure,

that their importance is quite obvious to almost anyone. However, what is far less

obvious is the high percentage of the population with dento-facial irregularities that

in many cases lead to problems if they become brass players. Hunt’s research into

these problems identifies characteristics that may have considerable effect on brass

playing. In particular he refers to two states of jaw formation, retrusion and

protusion. Hunt (1948:38) provides Cheney and Hughes’ (1946:379) descriptions of

these conditions as:

The condition of retrusion, called distoclusion by the orthodontist,

is sufficiently severe to warrant correction in approximately ten to
fifteen percent of the population. Protusion of the lower jaw, called
mesiocclusion, needs correction in about five per cent of the
population.

From the statements of Cheney and Hughes we can see that between fifteen and

twenty percent of the population may be affected by these conditions. In discussing

these potential problem areas for the brass player Hunt comments that in order for

the player to assume a desirable facial position (a good embouchure) they must first

alter the natural position of their face which can often result in strain and fatigue on

the facial muscles. As Hunt also points out these are only a few of the many

irregularities related to teeth, jaw and muscle structure in the face that affects the

formation of an embouchure.

89
In respect of dento-facial irregularities, it is interesting to consider the case of Salford

University student trumpet Heather Donelan, as an example of how a mouthpiece

with a specific design feature has helped to improve trumpet performance.

Heather has been playing the trumpet for eight years. She is currently a student in the

music department at Salford University where trumpet is her main study instrument.

Heather also plays trumpet with the Wigan Youth Jazz Orchestra. She has an

excellent tone and is a strong player. Her main concern is that she lacks stamina. Her

embouchure setting is unusual in that not only is it offset to the right but also very

little top is involved (see fig.37.). Attempts have been made to improve this

embouchure setting. However, her teeth formation appears to dictate the setting (see

fig.38.) and although her embouchure is, in theory, problematic, she plays well and is

considered to have a good tone. Her first choice of mouthpiece was a Vincent Bach

7c. In an attempt to improve her stamina and range she moved to a Schilke 15A4A.

Although this did have a positive effect in terms of range, it provided very little

assistance in increasing stamina. However, in making a further mouthpiece change to

a model with a wider rim, therefore increasing the amount of top lip in contact with

the mouthpiece (see fig.39.), there was a noticeable increase in Heather’s stamina. At

the time of recording this information the switch to the use of a wider rimmed

mouthpiece was fairly recent. It was anticipated that with sustained use of the ‘new’

mouthpiece Heather’s stamina would continue to improve.

90
 Fig.37. Heather Donelan using a Schilke 15A4A mouthpiece.

Mouthpiece
rim set only
on the lip at
this point

Fig.38. Heather Donelan’s teeth formation

Fig.39. Heather Donelan using a mouthpiece with a wide rim

The wider rim of

this mouthpiece
ensures that the
rim is set on the
muscle around
the lip

91
For many years there has been debate on alternative materials for use in mouthpiece

construction. The most common material by far is brass, a fact confirmed by Francis

Wilcox in 1957. However, he cautioned against the assumption that it is the best

material:

With modern technology, it is hazardous to say that brass is the best

material just because it has been doing a good job for many years
(Wilcox 1957:219).

Mouthpieces have been manufactured successfully from several other materials

including plastic, glass and wood. Indeed, several mouthpiece companies offer a

range of plastic rims. These have been especially popular for the American marching

band market, where performances often take place in sub-zero temperatures. Under

extreme conditions the mouthpiece becomes so cold that any contact with the surface

of the lips may result in tissue damage. In brass playing it is desirable for the rim to

feel warm in order to provide a comfortable feel for the mouthpiece against the lips.

Plastic rims have proved very popular in these situations. Furthermore, players

sometimes develop an allergy to brass. A plastic rim mouthpiece for players

experiencing allergy problems therefore provides a successful remedy.15 Jaztec

Custom Mouthpieces based in Norwich offer a range of plastic mouthpieces in a wide

variety of colours and designs:

The innovative design combines a hard resin cup with a full-length

brass backbore and shank. This ensures that it fits properly, remains
rigid and plays every bit as well as a regular metal mouthpiece.
These handmade mouthpieces are created to be as individual as you
are. No two are exactly the same. Colours range from natural to
really wild. The choice is yours (Jaztec n.d.).

15

Due to an allergy with brass, UK trumpeter Martin Winter uses a plastic rimmed trumpet mouthpiece.

92
Wooden mouthpieces have been produced by a small number of companies, although

only a very small number of players appear to use them with any regularity. Such

mouthpieces are credited with producing a warm, distinctive tone with the different

types of wood varying the range of tones produced. The Benterfa Company produces

a range of seven wooden mouthpieces:

Wood is a true receiver-transmitter of our personality. It is for this

reason, that Maurice Benterfa, the creator of these mouthpieces, has
selected seven sorts, each one having its own visual originality but
a “sentimental” identity that relays one’s personality. Each precious
wood can develop a distinct sound quality, because every one
possesses different densities and conductivities that favorise
vibrations (Benterfa 1998:1).

The four different woods used in the production of these mouthpieces are ebony,

violet-wood, olive-wood and ziricote.

Mouthpieces made from brass are finished in either silver or gold plating. The choice

appears to be associated with a combination of the feel on the player’s lips and subtle

difference in tone produced by the two materials. Those expressing a preference for

gold refer to the material having a warmer feel on the lips. For many years Bobby

Shew has worked with the Yamaha Corporation developing instruments and

mouthpieces that suit his requirements. Referring to his preferred type of finish he

commented:

It was un-plated and I was a bit concerned how much it might

change with different plating once we went into production. The
first test production models, however, were to prove superb,
especially in the normal silver plate. The Gold as well as the pure
silver changed the sound too much in the wrong direction for me…
Heavy plating changes the sound waves, as do heavily weighted
mouthpieces. Response is also affected by these factors. Gold
plating (and anything with added weight), when you play softly,
creates a darker and somewhat ‘thicker’ sound but when you
increase the air velocity as in lead playing, the weight restricts the
vibrations and overtones in the sound, making it more shrill, laser-

93
 like or thinner as you head into the upper register. That’s the
primary reason I personally don’t like to play gold or silver plated
instruments. With a mouthpiece, silver plating is OK (Yamaha
quoting Shew 2000).

With such a large number of variables present, the situation with regard to

embouchures and mouthpieces is extremely complicated. When the complications

of that situation are combined with the almost limitless number of mouthpiece

designs the problem becomes practically unthinkable. For example, how does a

trumpet player know with any certainty that in selecting a mouthpiece he has chosen

a design that suits the physical characteristics of his embouchure? As we have

already seen in this chapter there are so many features to consider – depth of cup,

diameter of cup, volume of cup, throat diameter, curvature of rim, rim thickness,

inner and outer bite, backbore shape and length, size of gap plus of course the many

features associated with teeth, lips and jaw including mouthpiece placement.

Some of the questions raised here were addressed in an in-depth study by Vincent

Malek. He is not in agreement with some of the findings made by Jacobs, for

example Malek (1953:151) states:

Regarding contoured mouthpieces …i.e., those that have the rims

curved to fit the arch of the teeth and lips …and mouthpieces with
oblong cup shapes, this study indicates very definitely that they are
not necessary for fine performance, whether they are desirable or
not is another matter, but the fact remains that not a single player in
the sample of fifty two experts uses anything but a symmetrical or
conventionally shaped mouthpiece.

Any study of brass mouthpieces is bound to address the question of mouthpiece

placement. Basically, there are three theories with regard to this issue. These are:

 Half on top lip and half on bottom lip

 Two thirds bottom lip and one third top lip

 One third bottom lip and two thirds top lip

94
Naturally, there are many variations on the above but these do help to categorise the

type of embouchure setting. Malek’s (1953:154) investigations on mouthpiece

placement concludes:

Extreme positions are undesirable … the placing of the mouthpiece

is unimportant as long as it feels comfortable and is in the general
vicinity of the centre of the mouth.

As stated earlier this thesis is concerned with the relationship between mouthpieces

and trumpet tone. As a discussion of the various components of the mouthpiece has

revealed, the mouthpiece is considered to be largely responsible for determining

much about the tone quality produced. If the mouthpiece is so influential in tone

production, and all the information available to us indicates that it is, then accurate

accounts of how each individual design of mouthpiece affects tone would be

invaluable to the trumpet profession.

Research by Kober (1957) described the use of a mechanical lip activated by a

suction device. The tones were recorded on tape and fed into a sonic analyser which

pictured the acoustical spectra of the tones. The work included the use of three

shapes of cupped mouthpiece. These were (i) cup shape (ii) a semi-rectilinear cup

and (iii) a double cup. Mouthpiece types (i) and (ii) were tested using shallow,

medium and deep volumes while the double cup was tested using only medium and

deep volumes. According to Kober all mouthpieces had the same dimensions. Kober

concluded:

Changing the volume of a cup in the trumpet mouthpiece affects

trumpet tone quality by influencing the pattern of distribution of
energy among the partials. The shape of the cup in a trumpet
mouthpiece influenced the energy distribution within the limits of
the patterns determined by the volume of the cup (1957:43).

95
Whilst Kober’s results offer a form of scientific testing, his findings are contentious

for two reasons. Firstly, in using a mechanical lip the human influence in tone

production is totally removed and yet, as this thesis argues, the relationship between

the player and the design of a mouthpiece is a crucial dimension. Secondly, since the

tone is analysed in Kober’s work by electronic methods the human factor is once

again absent. The importance of people’s perception of tone cannot be over-

emphasised. Frederick Myers (1948:5) alluded to the importance of the human

factor in his research into the effects of mouthpieces upon trumpet tone:

It is well to exercise care in any experiment where tone quality is to

be judged. Substituting the use of scientific instruments for true
scientific method is a trap that one may be caught in. Somewhere in
judging tone quality the human element must enter. The most
expensive instruments cannot say that a tone is pleasant or
unpleasant, full or pinched, brilliant or stuffy. These are human
reactions and they must be made by human auditor.

In Myers words ‘Tone is no better than the ear on which it falls’ (ibid:6) and it is

that type of thinking which provides an important underlying element in this

investigation into trumpet mouthpiece design.

What this account of all the component parts of a mouthpiece, their functions, their

variations and the adjustments possible, appears to suggest is that the success in

producing an efficient and effective mouthpiece is very much dependant on balance

of the components. In some ways this balance can be compared to the engine of a

car. If not enough fuel flows into the cylinders, or if it fails to flow smoothly, or if it

does not arrive with enough pressure behind it, then the engine either fails to work or

it runs very poorly. Similar things can happen to a trumpet mouthpiece. If the throat

or backbore are too big, then too much air flows through too quickly and although a

sound is produced, problems are almost certain to occur. If not enough air flows

96
through the mouthpiece because of the way it is designed, then problems also occur.

The issue of balance and the trumpet mouthpiece requires that consideration be given

to balance between all the component parts of the mouthpiece, between mouthpiece

and instrument, between player, mouthpiece and instrument, between the various

styles of music the player is required to perform.

This chapter has concentrated on the construction and function of components within

a mouthpiece. Explanation has been given as to how adjusting one or more of the

components can alter the performance of the mouthpiece. In conclusion, comments

made by Phyllis Stork and Bob Malone help to put into perspective the mass of

information available on the various components of a mouthpiece and the large

number of resulting variables:

The function of the mouthpiece is to take the physical attributes of

a given player and translate them into an aesthetically pleasing
result vis-à-vis the instrument (Stork interview see Moorehead Libs
1994:42).

Spending time to find the correct mouthpiece is always time well

spent. Since we all have different physical characteristics, our
needs are unique. These unique requirements begin at the
mouthpiece (Malone interview see Moorehead Libs 1994:42).

Having provided a thorough explanation of how a mouthpiece is constructed and

how the various components of the mouthpiece function and affect performance, the

study now moves on to discuss the role of the industry and the marketing of

mouthpieces.

97
98