Posted by Joe Baker on November 18, 2002 at 17:50:06:
I see people here frequently give the back of their hands to MPs that are readily available at a good price in favor of more expensive 'boutique' mouthpieces. For example, there was a post down the list a little ways that listed euph MPs in order of preference, with SMs presumed to be a bit better than Schilkes. I'd like some of you to educate me about this.
It seems to me that, given two mouthpieces that have very similar, but not quite identical, measurements, made of the same materials, it would be like two pairs of shoes. One fits me better, the other fits you better. I should be no more interested in what mouthpiece works for player X than I am in what size pants, nor should I be any more interested in following the example. So what makes a $200 mouthpiece INTRINSICLY better than a $60 one? Surely there are some for whom the $200 piece works better, but wouldn't there be JUST as many for whom the $60 one works better? And I didn't say "just as well", I said "better".
Please note, I have no question that there are some for whom the best piece happens to be an expensive one, and I certainly don't question the value of a customized MP, whether that is achieved by modular means (i.e. Doug Elliot), modifications to a known quantity, or experimentation from scratch. I'm only challenging the opinion that the more expensive ones are intrinsically better.
Joe Baker, who is (as always) prepared to have his presuppositions proven wrong.