Given a newly discovered ability to use larger mouthpieces, I decided to try out a Markey 95 in place of my Markey 87, and it works just fine, might dial back to a 90 or 93, but no problems whatsoever.

Maybe not such a big jump as a practical matter, and assuming I don't notice any pitch or endurance issues, it seems like the only downside is pulling my chops even further from a workable mouthpiece for a .547" horn.

Any other things to be wary of?

Check out your sound. I've heard Markey on his bigger stuff, and he sounded noticeably fuzzier and less centered on the big pieces compared to the 87.

Thanks, noted. My problem now is that I am in between ensembles, with no way to have anyone else check for reasonableness.

I went through school and the first few years of my pro career on a 1.12" size rim like a Schilke 59 or Markey 85. Went gradually bigger to a Jeff Reynolds L, then Ferguson/Minick LS. Then I had some really extreme playing demands and went to a Laskey 93D (1.15" 29.3mm) and got stuck there for about 8 years - the response is so good for a mouthpiece that size, but I had trouble controlling the sound. I've managed to scale back to a 1.14" (29.0mm) rim.

It can be difficult to go back smaller after getting used to something very big. I also find for my hybrid mouthpiece tenor doubling purposes, the 114 rim sounds a lot better then a 115, even when that's what I was used to for bass playing.

Upper register that is working now will probably get more difficult over time as you become more adjusted to the big rim. This certainly happened to me with the 93D. At first it seemed like I could play everything I did on the smaller piece but with easier low register, but soon I found I had to put some serious time in to rebuilding the high register.

It might be more difficult to stay in tune at different dynamics with the bigger rim, and it will likely be more difficult to manipulate the tone color.

Specific to the Markeys, the 95 is huge, about the size of the Laskey 95D, maybe a touch deeper but a smaller throat. Unless you're Charlie Vernon or Paul Pollard, I would never recommend it as an everyday mouthpiece. The 93 is only slightly less huge.

I find the Markey 90 to be a very odd mouthpiece. Because I'm used to a rim that size I'm probably more sensitive to it, but the 93 and 95 probably have similar characteristics. I get the sensation it's blowing back at me when I'm playing. I suppose you could call it stuffy, but that's not really it. I find it very strange. I've had a couple of students playing it, and they both found it difficult for endurance over time and have scaled back to an 87. The rim is also very thin and uncomfortable for me.

I would have to do a lot of adjustment to play an 87, but it feels to me like a much better balanced mouthpiece overall. The depth of the cup takes a pretty big jump between the 87 and the 90.

Thanks Gabe, I need to run the experiment for awhile to get over the thrill of not immediately crashing and burning.

I have rather thin lips (a byproduct of Scots-Irish ancestry, methinks) and not-so-wide mouth and a small radius to my jaw which made me always assume I was physically predisposed to smaller mouthpieces, but it seems these characteristics don't really correlate with mouthpiece size in practice.

[quote="JTeagarden"]I have rather thin lips (a byproduct of Scots-Irish ancestry, methinks) and not-so-wide mouth and a small radius to my jaw which made me always assume I was physically predisposed to smaller mouthpieces, but it seems these characteristics don't really correlate with mouthpiece size in practice.[/quote]

Yeah, I think not for bass trombone. Doug himself says that rim size is less dependent on embouchure type and physical characteristics on bass than tenor.

[quote="GabrielRice"]

I find the Markey 90 to be a very odd mouthpiece. Because I'm used to a rim that size I'm probably more sensitive to it, but the 93 and 95 probably have similar characteristics. I get the sensation it's blowing back at me when I'm playing. I suppose you could call it stuffy, but that's not really it. I find it very strange. I've had a couple of students playing it, and they both found it difficult for endurance over time and have scaled back to an 87. The rim is also very thin and uncomfortable for me.

I would have to do a lot of adjustment to play an 87, but it feels to me like a much better balanced mouthpiece overall. The depth of the cup takes a pretty big jump between the 87 and the 90.[/quote]

I find this very interesting because that tracks exactly with my experience with the 90. I played it for about 3 months. Great sound in high range, great sound in middle, very free blowing, fun...until working in the lower range. And I would indeed use the word stuffy that you wanted to omit. For me, it really felt like it closed up, I played it for colleagues who agreed.

The impression I have is that the 87 and the 85 are by far the most popular models in this series. And looking at the dimensions that makes a lot of sense. Everyone I listened to live on these models sounds better than on comparable stuff they played beforr, period. It seems to me the 93 and 95 were only added to the line to cover a bigger crowd but were not really the center of attention for this great line of mouthpieces.

Love my modified Markey 93. Had it customized to take my DE 115XB rim. Also had the throat opened up to .307 and added a mass ring to the top of the shank. I believe the shape of the bottom of the cup is what makes it unique. Both valves play evenly and the double trigger notes are remarkably easy for me. The mouthpiece is wonderful up and down the entire range of the instrument.

My frustrations with the choices in bass trombone mouthpieces is based on the lack of “medium-sized” throats. There are good choices in bass trombone mouthpieces with smaller throats (high .290s) and an abundance of monster mouthpieces with “Alaskan Pipeline” throats (.312 and .319).

For folks like me who have average lung capacity, the logical sweet spot seems to be a throat diameter in between .305 and .309. Do some looking around and one will quickly notice that the choices are very slim.

Currently concentrating on getting a full sound on the 95 at very low dynamics, "letting it rip" is very satisfying, but I want this piece (or whatever I ultimately land on) to be more than a one-trick pony, so I reason that if it it sounds focused at pp, it just might work.

Like any mouthpiece change give it 3/4 weeks and get back to us. And to echo Gabe when I went smaller 20 years ago it took months to be able to rely on my entire register 100%. Extreme low register was the problem for me.

[quote="Burgerbob"]Check out your sound. I've heard Markey on his bigger stuff, and he sounded noticeably fuzzier and less centered on the big pieces compared to the 87.[/quote]

What are his main piece ? ...or does he change between them?

[quote="Tbarh"]<QUOTE author="Burgerbob" post_id="292179" time="1767971941" user_id="3131">
Check out your sound. I've heard Markey on his bigger stuff, and he sounded noticeably fuzzier and less centered on the big pieces compared to the 87.[/quote]

What are his main piece ? ...or does he change between them?
</QUOTE>

Typically 87.

I've been playing/toying with an 85 for the last few months (played our Christmas and New Year's gigs on it), and there are definitely things I like about it (playing exclusively in big band now). But I think the 87 might be better for me. I can't imagine using a 95.

However, after a LOT of trial and effort and hand-wringing, I really can't seem to find anything that's better than the DE set-up I have in terms of overall comfort, sound, and articulation -- especially with the valves in the lower registers.

Flirtation with the 95 is over, while it immediately made the low register easier, it required too much effort to shape and focus the sound, and a third lung to keep it going.

No fatigue or endurance problems, but was giving up too much for a marginal improvement in the lower register.

[quote="JTeagarden"]Flirtation with the 95 is over, while it immediately made the low register easier, it required too much effort to shape and focus the sound, and a third lung to keep it going.[/quote]
While I have at times used a larger mouthpiece to GET some facility in the low register (and similarly with larger shanks), I've gone back to a smaller one to KEEP it and get what I want out of it. :lol: