Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length

 
Advanced search

1087332 Posts in 72017 Topics- by 19243 Members - Latest Member: CABurton159
Jump to:  
Pages: [1] 2  All   Go Down
Print
Author Topic: G&W Jazz Line  (Read 5806 times)
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
TromboneMonkey

*
Offline Offline

Location:
Joined: Aug 16, 2009
Posts: 2386

View Profile
« on: Aug 30, 2013, 01:33PM »

Howdy,

I've been toying with G&W jazz pieces here for the past several months and I'd like to share some of my observations.  I think it's a very interesting line that would benefit from further development, which it seems is in the works.  I've been very impressed with their service and product quality.  What follows will purely be observations about the mouthpieces themselves. 

At first I ordered the Chocolatero and the Chubasco.  Right off the bat I preferred the Chocolatero.  The Chubasco is just too much car for me.  It feels about like a Bach 7 (no 'c').  Deeper than it needs to be, imo, and wider than I like.  Not like an 11c at all (as its description claims...).  The articulations on it were good, but it nevertheless felt tubby.  If I was going to play screaming salsa on a 3b I might like it, but for big band/bebopy stuff it's just way too much. 

The Chocolatero is interesting.  It feels like an 11c in width to me, but it's definitely more funnel-shaped than even the older 11cs and definitely newer ones/copies.  I'm used to Doug's C-cup, which is about the same depth, but much more bowl-shaped.  The funnel allows for clarity and good flexibility, but at the cost of easy slotting and rapid-fire articulations.  The steel helps out some with the articulations but further complicates the slotting (ymmv). 

Well about that time they rolled out the Bacchus, which has a more bowl-shaped cup and slightly tighter throat.  It was indeed an improvement.  The cup is shallower, like Doug's B-cup or a Bach D-cup.  The rim is wider, about like a 7.  The throat is visibly tighter, which in my experience means "a lot tighter".  For lead stuff this is a great piece, but I found the rim diameter again to be a little wide for my tastes (gah!), and the cup is pretty tight for a lot of playing that I do (basically anything non-lead).  I mean it works, but it was still a compromise.

But behold!  Right about that time they roll out the GWC-100, which on their website is described as "Similar to our Chocolatero in rim diameter and throat - with a slightly shallower cup."  Perfect!!!!  I ordered it right away.


 >:(

It's basically the opposite of what the website describes.  It has the SAME cup depth as the Choc, but with a MUCH wider rim (like a 6.5-sided rim).  So it's basically a 6.5A. Grumble.  On the upside, I played it on my colleague's Bach Model 34 trombone and it was the absolute perfect combination.  So I'm hanging onto it, but continuing to play on my DE for day-to-day work. 
Logged

-John
Matt K

*
*
Offline Offline

Location:
Joined: May 6, 2010
Posts: 7185

View Profile
« Reply #1 on: Aug 30, 2013, 03:04PM »

If you like the cup depth but not hte rim, Osmun will thread steel mouthpieces for Doug rims.
Logged

What's in a name? that which we call a tenor-bass posaune
By any other name would smell as sweet;
TromboneMonkey

*
Offline Offline

Location:
Joined: Aug 16, 2009
Posts: 2386

View Profile
« Reply #2 on: Aug 30, 2013, 03:09PM »

If you like the cup depth but not hte rim, Osmun will thread steel mouthpieces for Doug rims.

I'm actually thinking of taking the opposite approach; I'm probably going to send off my Doug rim to be copied in steel to see if the effects of the material transfer well onto Doug's great design. 
Logged

-John
Matt K

*
*
Offline Offline

Location:
Joined: May 6, 2010
Posts: 7185

View Profile
« Reply #3 on: Aug 31, 2013, 05:05AM »

Just out of curiosity, who makes steel duplicates? 
Logged

What's in a name? that which we call a tenor-bass posaune
By any other name would smell as sweet;
TromboneMonkey

*
Offline Offline

Location:
Joined: Aug 16, 2009
Posts: 2386

View Profile
« Reply #4 on: Aug 31, 2013, 09:18AM »

Dave Houser. 

http://www.housermouthpiece.net/

 Good!
Logged

-John
Burgerbob

*
Offline Offline

Location: Los Angeles
Joined: Aug 12, 2007
Posts: 5411

View Profile
« Reply #5 on: Aug 31, 2013, 10:57AM »

This is just my opinion, but I feel like G&W would have more success if they copied designs first. I feel like most of their mouthpieces are completely different than basically anything else out there.

I played a Mark 1 (bass trombone) mouthpiece for a year. It's nothing like a 1.5G, which is what it's supposed to be.

Also, the Kadja I had was nothing like a 5G- completely funnel shaped with a huge throat.

This isn't to say I didn't like things about them, but perhaps a more standard design in steel would be more successful.
Logged

Brasslab 50T3, Greg Glack 1G .312 #2
Bach 50B, ditto
Conn 60H, ditto
Bach 42B, Greg Black NY 1.25
Conn 6H, King 7MD
Yamaha YEP-842S, Schilke 53/59
Yamaha YBH-301MS, Hammond 12XL
Todd Jonz
Department of Redundancy Department

*
Offline Offline

Location: Vermont
Joined: Sep 13, 2003
Posts: 3655
"Do not taunt Happy Fun Ball."


View Profile
« Reply #6 on: Aug 31, 2013, 11:42AM »


TromboneMonkey writes:

> > Just out of curiosity, who makes steel duplicates?
>
> Dave Houser

If anyone goes this route I'd be very interested to hear how it goes.  I tried having my DE set-up copied a few years back and it didn't go very well.  I was promised my 'piece would be scanned and returned within a week to ten days, but after a month had passed and several e-mail inquiries went unanswered I asked for a refund and the immediate return of my 'piece (both of which, to Mr. Houser's credit, I received promptly.)

I'd really like to try again, but I won't until I hear that someone has received better service than I did.  Based on the fact that duplication services are currently unavailable, however, it doesn't sound to me like much has changed.

Logged

Have you registered at TromboneChat.com yet?
TromboneMonkey

*
Offline Offline

Location:
Joined: Aug 16, 2009
Posts: 2386

View Profile
« Reply #7 on: Aug 31, 2013, 12:30PM »

This is just my opinion, but I feel like G&W would have more success if they copied designs first. I feel like most of their mouthpieces are completely different than basically anything else out there.



That is an astute observation. 

The Choc is supposed to be like a 12c, it's more like an 11a, if there were such a thing.  The Chubasco is supposed to be like an 11, it's like a 7.  The Bacchus is close to a 7c, which is what Ivan told me, so I'll have to give him that one.  Pant  And the GWC-100 is like a 6.5a, not like a shallow Choco, which would've been like an 11c. 

I'm not sure if the material necessitates the unique designs.  It might; what works for brass may not work in steel, so who knows. 


If anyone goes this route I'd be very interested to hear how it goes. 



I'll let you know!
Logged

-John
growlerbox
Just a clown with an axe

*
Offline Offline

Location: Wellington, New Zealand
Joined: Feb 1, 2012
Posts: 988

View Profile
« Reply #8 on: Aug 31, 2013, 01:14PM »

I have the Barber (and the Harry Watters, but that's a different animal altogether).  I'm no expert, but I have a Faxx 7c and a Bach Corp. 11c megatone for comparison, and by my estimation, the Barber sits between them, but has the more funnel-shaped cup you also attribute to the Chocolatero.  The website says that the throat is a little narrower than the Choco, which I am interested to try, but being in NZ means that back and forth shipping can get a little pricey.

It's interesting that the Barber is often missed in discussions of G&W pieces, and I'm not sure why that would be.  I like mine, and if it's fair to say that small-bore players are either 11c-ers or 7c-ers, then I fall into the first category.  When I got my Jiggs 2B second hand, it came with the Jiggs Whigham 1A mouthpiece, which I was somewhat surprised to like -- 11-ish, smooth bite (the sharp bite being what I dislike most about the 7c), and very funnel-shaped.  I had been playing the Watters on my 3B and much prefer SS to brass, so looked for a G&W piece that might come close to the Jiggs.  Ivan was helpful but carefully (and I think rightly) didn't make a specific suggestion, and I wound up choosing the Barber.  TromboneMonkey's description of the Choco possibly puts it a little closer still.

Maybe I'm just going to have to bite the bullet and get one over ...
Logged

If it's not worth doing, it's not worth doing well.
bonedude
*
Offline Offline

Location:
Joined: Oct 22, 2011
Posts: 151

View Profile
« Reply #9 on: Aug 31, 2013, 02:44PM »

The new "baachus" is definately worth a try. The most comfortable in the jazz line. The 101 is my next favorite. The watters is really nice too if you like 6 1/2 al size mouthpieces.
Logged
growlerbox
Just a clown with an axe

*
Offline Offline

Location: Wellington, New Zealand
Joined: Feb 1, 2012
Posts: 988

View Profile
« Reply #10 on: Aug 31, 2013, 03:06PM »

The new "baachus" is definately worth a try. The most comfortable in the jazz line. The 101 is my next favorite. The watters is really nice too if you like 6 1/2 al size mouthpieces.

The 7c thing puts me off the Bacchus.  I think the Watters scaled down to 11-size would be just about perfect.  If it's true that the 11c and the 6 1/2 AL are essentially smaller and larger versions of the same basic mouthpiece (and 12c and 7c similarly), then perhaps it's not such a crazy idea.
Logged

If it's not worth doing, it's not worth doing well.
TromboneMonkey

*
Offline Offline

Location:
Joined: Aug 16, 2009
Posts: 2386

View Profile
« Reply #11 on: Sep 01, 2013, 06:47AM »

My favorite 11c mouthpieces, and all Bach designs in general, have a defined 'shoulder' to the inside of the cup.  Meaning they're all bowl-shaped, relative to some other designs.  Kings are funnel-shaped, along with Warburtons and some Marcinkiewiczs.  The Giddings mouthpieces that I've tried, except for the Bacchus, are funnel-shaped; so if you like that you're in business!

I got your PM and I'll be responding shortly!
Logged

-John
growlerbox
Just a clown with an axe

*
Offline Offline

Location: Wellington, New Zealand
Joined: Feb 1, 2012
Posts: 988

View Profile
« Reply #12 on: Sep 01, 2013, 11:17AM »

That's good to know -- my PM list spontaneously reset to 0 as I sent yours, so I have no record of it.

Look forward to hearing from you, and thanks again for the review.
Logged

If it's not worth doing, it's not worth doing well.
growlerbox
Just a clown with an axe

*
Offline Offline

Location: Wellington, New Zealand
Joined: Feb 1, 2012
Posts: 988

View Profile
« Reply #13 on: Sep 02, 2013, 03:31PM »

My favorite 11c mouthpieces, and all Bach designs in general, have a defined 'shoulder' to the inside of the cup.  Meaning they're all bowl-shaped, relative to some other designs.  Kings are funnel-shaped, along with Warburtons and some Marcinkiewiczs.  The Giddings mouthpieces that I've tried, except for the Bacchus, are funnel-shaped; so if you like that you're in business!

Been doing some more thinking and experimenting with various mouthpieces (I have way more than I should, and with a little luck another may be heading in my direction).  I have various funnel (Marc 11, Jiggs 1A, Monette TS6S1, G&W Watters, G&W Barber) and cup-shaped pieces (Bach 11c megatone, Faxx 7c, Wick 6BS).  This is, of course, far from the only difference between between them, and some of the conclusions drawn are speculative at best, but I find that I like the comfort and flexibility I get from the funnels, and the brilliance I get from the cups, in general.  The stainless pieces seem to get the flexibility from the shape, but I wonder if the material gets them back some of the brilliance lost in departing from the cup shape?  Playing through a few Clarke-type exercises and some big band lines with all of these, the Barber and the 11c come out on top for me for sound (not the same, but both work for me) although the Barber wins for articulation and flexibility; followed by the Watters and the Marc 11.  All on a Jiggs 2B, for this trial.

I have a feeling the Choco may give me the best of both ... or perhaps I'm talking myself into it.
Logged

If it's not worth doing, it's not worth doing well.
growlerbox
Just a clown with an axe

*
Offline Offline

Location: Wellington, New Zealand
Joined: Feb 1, 2012
Posts: 988

View Profile
« Reply #14 on: Sep 23, 2013, 11:14PM »

Received a Chocolatero from TromboneMonkey, who very helpfully shipped it to NZ for me.  I used it at a big band rehearsal today in my Jiggs 2B, and it's like they were made for each other.  I still prefer the Barber in the 3B, which is my usual big band horn (I play 3rd); the Choco feels a little tight, or something, despite the slightly wider backbore.  It is more cup-shaped than the Barber, although it has a definite "flute" into the Venturi, and a little less bite at the rim.  While the Barber sounds pretty good in the 2B (to me, anyway), the partials don't line up quite as well as I felt they should, and I find myself making lots of adjustments.  Everything just seems to work better with the Choco, even down into the 2nd partial, and the brigter, lighter tone is what the Jiggs is all about.

I liked the 2B with the Barber.  I really dig it with the Chocolatero.  Still very much into the 3B with the Barber.

I love it when a plan comes together.  Thanks, Mr Monkey!
Logged

If it's not worth doing, it's not worth doing well.
TromboneMonkey

*
Offline Offline

Location:
Joined: Aug 16, 2009
Posts: 2386

View Profile
« Reply #15 on: Sep 24, 2013, 12:51PM »

Not a problem; glad you're into it!  The mouthpiece that originally came stock with the 2b was the King M-21 I think, which is a similar profile to the Choc (deeper cup for a small mouthpiece, 12c-11c in size, wide backbore), so it makes sense that they function well together.

Enjoy it!
Logged

-John
bonedude
*
Offline Offline

Location:
Joined: Oct 22, 2011
Posts: 151

View Profile
« Reply #16 on: Sep 24, 2013, 01:52PM »

Anybody ever try the NB-100 as a 6 1/2al sized jazz piece?
Logged
TromboneMonkey

*
Offline Offline

Location:
Joined: Aug 16, 2009
Posts: 2386

View Profile
« Reply #17 on: Sep 24, 2013, 04:54PM »

Anybody ever try the NB-100 as a 6 1/2al sized jazz piece?

Never tried the NB-100, but the GWC-100 is a 6.5-type piece.  It says it's not on the website but it is, at least in diameter.  Just a bit shallower.  It works really well and feels as though it would fit perfectly on a heavy 3b or a .525 horn.  Salsa-style. 
Logged

-John
bonedude
*
Offline Offline

Location:
Joined: Oct 22, 2011
Posts: 151

View Profile
« Reply #18 on: Sep 24, 2013, 04:58PM »

Ron Wilkins fav. small bore piece is the gwc-101! I have to agree with him. He sounds great on it.
Logged
Matt K

*
*
Offline Offline

Location:
Joined: May 6, 2010
Posts: 7185

View Profile
« Reply #19 on: Sep 24, 2013, 05:53PM »

Anybody ever try the NB-100 as a 6 1/2al sized jazz piece?

Sort of a long story, but I ended up with one.  I decided to bite the bullet and give the Osmun threading a shot.  It plays pretty well with my Doug Elliott XTN104 rim.  Doesn't project as well, would be a great mic mouthpiece. But it's a nice bridge between my Elliott C cup and E cup. I've been using it when I practice outside since the stainless doesn't tarnish like Doug's silver.
Logged

What's in a name? that which we call a tenor-bass posaune
By any other name would smell as sweet;
Pages: [1] 2  All   Go Up
Print
Jump to: