Question: I have heard that Guy Chadash has started making mouthpiece blanks. I think it's a collaborative work with Chris Hill. Did any of you have had the chance to look at them?

Answer: Guy and I have a few samples out, and are hoping for production to start soon. Some of the people who are trying them now are Eli Eban, Dan Gilbert, Bob Crowley, and John Wegand. The reason we are making these is because neither of us were satisfied with the newer moulded blanks, and the old ones that many of us like are too expensive for many people. Why should someone who likes the way these older mouthpieces play need to spend more for their mouthpiece than they do for their clarinet?

Question: Guy Chadash and Chris Hill have collaborated their info to construct a copy of the old "Chedeville" blank. It is supposedly an exact copy from the best original blanks, he even had the old rod rubber material copied too. I for one believe in the theory, "Let sleeping dogs lie". Why reincarnate these old dead and buried legends?

Answer: Well, because there was a good reason as to why there were such master-pieces.  The material was superb and mixing for a cheaper priced material was not an objective in the 1930's through the 1960's.  Superb material topped with correct dimensions will be hard to compete with.

Question: I'm afraid the description is full of advertising hype, constantly contradicting itself. First, they say, "Due to shrinkage and final shaping, [a fine mouthpiece] is always hand finished." Then they say, "a lot of mouthpieces on the market today suffer from the characteristics of hand finishing, which tends to lack the precision repeatability." I agree that hand finishing is what transforms a mouthpiece from a decent machine-made product to something suitable for professional work. Why do they say this once and then take it back? They say "All the vital characteristic of the "Chedeville", of the 1930's, have been very meticulously copied." Then they say "the baffle and bore were vastly improved due to today's precision technology." So which is it? The Chadash-Hill mouthpieces may be very good (though not, I think, without hand finishing). However, the proof is in how they play, and not their puffing.

Answer: It would help to read and not be confused by your own intellect.  Those dimensions of the 30's, when they were good, were superb.  It is the precision repeatability that we are offering.  This would make sure that there isn't a single mouthpiece coming off the presses that will not have a perfect baffle, bore, and chamber and that's the idea.

Question: Both Bernard Portnoy and Larry Combs have said (and I agree) that no matter whose mouthpiece you play, it may make a difference for a couple of weeks, but you will eventually return to sounding like yourself. The sound "in your head" always prevails. If the mpc that you are playing on articulates well, has a focused sound allowing expressive flexibility and plays in tune, then you've got the best there is and should stick to it until it becomes worn and warped with age. Then, there is always "refacing." Just some words of advice from the owner of too many old mouthpieces (that all basically play the same).

Answer: Yes indeed we will always sound like ourselves, no matter what equipment we play.  We are the ones who voice and hopefully interpret music to the best of our abilities.  But don't tell me that the material and dimensions of a good old mouthpiece versus inferior materials in new mouth pieces do not make a difference. I am also very much aware that many brand name mouthpieces such as Kaspar and or Chedeville were not all great, and or touched and refaced so many times that there was not much left to them but the brand name.

Listener comment: I think they are aiming at making a consistent blank. I just find it interesting that they went all the way in reproducing the actual material of the old "Chedeville". But yes so far I only heard about it not tried, but I'll get a chance to play one of the prototypes tomorrow so I'll keep you posted. However, I am far from being a good player so everything I report should be taken with a grain of salt. Anyways, I always find it exciting news when people are trying to make new and improved equipment for our instrument, if I had money I would just get all of it! Those guys are really reputable professionals so they could really be onto something good.

Question: I just tried the mouthpiece. My current mouthpiece is a Vandoren M15-13 which I find very good. I always felt it sounded just as good and in tune as anything man-made for at least 1/2 the price. Of course you have to be careful and try a few before buying anything. So I was very anxious to try this new mouthpiece and I just did! It sounds nice a bit less bright than my current mouthpiece. I did not have enough time to check for intonation and all but I didn't hear anything really out of tune. The facing was not optimal for my reeds, but again had no time to really fiddle with reeds. The material of the blank looks and feels really great. I really believe it is of much superior quality than the rubber Vandoren uses. With a bit of fine tuning and a good facing job, we'll have another very good mouthpiece on the market. I don't know how much it will cost, but I suspect much more than the $60 you pay for a standard machine made mouthpiece. Is it going to be cheap enough and sound good enough for me to drop my Vandoren? I won't know until they tell us how much it cost.

Answer: Very valid question.  It is hard to compete with the mass produced commercial mouthpieces, such as Vandoren. At least as far as pricing concerns, you have to realize that with this superb material blank, you will have the liberty of choosing whoever you want to either reface it absolutely to your satisfaction or purchase one already with a facing from various mouthpiece makers since this blank has all ready been ordered by many of them.  Then you be the judge.