Once the historical context is settled, it is possible to ask ourselves: Do we see any physical evidence in the extant mouthpieces from 1800-1850 which shows that the change of reed positioning influenced the mouthpieces geometry and design, or vice versa?
When the clarinet was created, the mouthpieces were very pointy and narrow in the tip, and afterwrds they progressed towards wider designs.1 This has relation to the fact that in the beginning, oboe players were the ones to play the clarinet:2 a reed above embouchure with a narrow and pointy mouthpiece resembles much more the oboe embouchure than the contrary, and would have been easier to play on.
Together with a narrow and pointy shape, the mouthpieces had also very narrow windows. The window of a mouthpiece is the aperture over which the reed is placed and where the player blows into it. Mouthpieces have been evolving from those narrow designs to more squared windows, as well as to wider mouthpieces.
It is proposed here that mouthpieces could reflect in the design of their window shape the change in reed positioning: As more players started to play reed below, makers could have been tilted to make fatter mouthpieces with bigger windows, which would be better fitted to this reed position.
This research focused on a particular period: 1800 – 1850. In this period, a change of paradigm regarding the reed position took place: in Germany, we observed the change from both reed positions coexisting to reed below being dominant, and in France, from barely only encountering reed above at the beginning of the period to the dominance of reed below in the end.
In the analysis that follows, we will see that indeed there are changes in the mouthpiece designs in the period 1800-1850, especially in the shape and size of the window. What are exactly those changes? And, more important: Is there a relationship between the evolution in the mouthpiece design and the evolution in the reed position change, or it is just a coincidence?
Several graphics will be presented in this section. Those graphics have been made using the data gathered from measuring historical mouthpieces. The aim when presenting those graphs is to sort this numerical information in a visual way that allows us to interpret it.
In the next two graphics, we see a representation of the width of the top of the window with respect to the year, in Germany and France, respectively. The width of the top of the window is used also as a proxy of the mouthpiece tip wideness: usually, if a mouthpiece has a wider top part, it will result in a wider top part of the mouthpiece.
The first thing that can be observed is a constant increment in the width of the top of the window during the period 1800-1850.
We also see that this trend is more evident in France than in Germany. This fact would be consistent with the idea that in the 1800s in Germany, reed above and reed below options co-existed much more than in France, where almost only reed up was employed. Therefore, it would make sense that the evolution in France would be more drastic.
In France, we also see the clearest increase in the width of the top of the window between 1820 and 1850, which is coherent with the date of the visit of Heinrch Baerman (1817-18) and the still ongoing debate about the reed position in the 1830s inside the Paris Conservatoire.
In England, we see an early increment in the width of the top of the window, unlike France, which has a later increment in this parameter. This could reflect that already in 1800 we find mentions of the two methods for positioning the reed in English tutors. Also, the points are a bit dispersed, this could be due to the coexistence of the two trends during the period: there are records of at least one English virtuoso playing with reed facing up till 1840.3
The data shows not only an increment in the width of the top of the window but also a change in the shape of the window itself. The windows from a more pointy shape at the beginning of the 19th century, to a more square one in the middle of the century.
In the graphics below we can observe how both in Germany and France there is a tendency to squarer window during the period 1800-1850. The graphs show in the vertical axis the measure of the “Aspect Ratio” of the window with respect to the year in the horizontal axis.
“Aspect ratio” is a measure of how pointy is the window: the bigger the number, the more pointy, and “rectangular” the window, and the closer to 1, the closer it is to a perfect square.4
Again, this evolution over time is more accused in France, where the changes regarding reed position would have been bigger: in the 1800s there were barely any people playing reed down, and therefore no need for mouthpieces suited for this style, while in the mid-century we had the opposite case. In Germany, the initial situation was milder, since the two styles coexist.
We don’t observe any change in Aspect Ratio in England: this means that the windows from mouthpieces didn’t change how pointy or not they are. This is probably related to English mouthpieces having very squared windows from the beginning of the 19th century: they could not get much more squared.
Another parameter that we can use to link the evolution of the reed position to the mouthpiece evolution is the window area: namely, how big the window of a mouthpiece is.
Here, we also see a clear increment during the years of study: in France, Germany, and England. Like the situation with the increase in the width of the top of the window, French mouthpieces again show a bigger increment than German ones.
English mouthpieces present an early increment, like with the increase in the width of the top of the window. The increment in window area is also surprisingly big in England, especially taking into account that the window shape in this country didn’t change a lot. Maybe this great increment in the area was a way to compensate for the impossibility to change the shape.
Another source of information regarding if a mouthpiece was designed to be played reed above or reed below is the information given by the maker’s stamp position. If the stamp is on the reed side, the mouthpiece was most likely meant to be played with the reed facing up.
Several mouthpieces from the sample presented maker’s stamps, both on the reed side and on the opposite side of the reed. An interesting effect was observed: several of the mouthpieces with the stamp of the reed side present teeth marks.5 At first, this looks strange: if a mouthpiece has a maker´s stamp on the reed side and probably was played with the reed up, why would it have teeth marks, which are normally caused by the upper teeth biting into the mouthpiece?
This could mean that those mouthpieces were built meant to be played with the reed facing up, but ended up being played with the reed facing down. Probably the explanation is that they were used for a long time, and the trend regarding reed position changed during this time; or that they were played by different clarinetists with different reed position habits. And, of course, a mouthpiece built with the idea to be played reed above can also be played reed below: we are analyzing tendencies and preferences, it is not a black-and-white situation.
Another possibility is that people didn’t employ a double lip embouchure, and they would place the mouthpiece over the bottom teeth without the lip covering them. This approach is suggested by Vanderhagen6 is his comment “appuier le bec sur le dents” (Vanderhagen, Methode nouvelle et raisonée pour la clarinet, 3).
Nevertheless, most likely Vanderhagen wanted the same as other authors like Lefevre, and he actually meant to put the bottom lip between the mouthpiece and the bottom teeth.
Further studies in this direction with a bigger number of samples could shed light on the matter.
During the first half of the 19th century, we witness two processes: a change in the reed position and changes in the clarinet mouthpieces’ window shape and dimensions. I have described above how those two processes interact with one another, and now I can assess the question: Are those two processes related to one another? Do they have a connection, a causal relation?
I think they are related to one another, and it is not just a coincidence that they happened at the same time. One strong point to support this is that aspects of the different reality regarding the reed position in each country are also portrayed in the graphs showing the evolution of the mouthpiece design:
- We see a more evident change in France than in Germany regarding the growth of the width of the top of the window and the window area, together with a bigger change in the shape of the window. As mentioned before, these facts could reflect the fact that, in the 1800s, reed above and reed below options co-existed much more in Germany than in France, where almost only reed up was employed. Therefore, an evolution towards an only reed below position would have a greater effect on the mouthpiece design in France than in Germany.
- In France, we see the clearest increases in the width of the top of the window between 1820 and 1850, which is consistent with the date of the visit of Heinrich Baerman (1817-1818) and with the still ongoing debate about the reed position in the 1830s inside the Paris Conservatoire.
- In England, we see an early increment in the width of the top of the window, unlike France, which has a later increment in this parameter. This would be consistent with the fact that as early as 1800 we find mentions of the two methods for positioning the reed in the English treatises.
Is it possible to assess which one caused which? Were the reed position changes what influenced the mouthpiece design, or was it the other way around? I think probably the reed position change was the primal force: we see that clarinetists in France were amazed about the visit of Baermann to Paris and his capacity to play pianissimo; after that, they advocated to play with the reed facing down. Playing reed below seems to have suited better the aesthetics of the time regarding sound, dynamics and articulation: people would have changed progressively to this option and makers would have adapted – consciously or not – their mouthpiece design to fit this.
There are a couple of questions that fell over the scope of this research, and that could be the logical continuation of this work:
What happened with the French mouthpieces before 1800/1820? Which trend do they have? Do they experience an increment like in the period that I studied? If so, is this increment bigger or smaller?
Could the increase in the window shape and area be related to a desire to adapt to a new sound paradigm, to get greater resistance, or more volume? It would be interesting to study this and how it relates to the reed above/below situation and evolution.
Finally, gathering more samples to complete the present study would be a valuable addition.