Rune brought up some excellent points, one of which I'd like to elaborate upon a bit....

Often when players play on a mouthpiece which is too large for them, either in depth of cup(causing them to collapse their lips into the bowl of the mouthpiece) or in diameter(causing them to use excess pressure, close their teeth/throat, or lose range/control/endurance or become fatigued easily), it is because they've been subjected to the demands of a director who has a misconception of the sound of a trumpet....

This is not a flame, Carl, merely an observation based on experience...

These same directors, given the choice of picking out their *ideal trumpet sound* are more likely to choose that of:

a.  A small-bore trombone in the upper register
b.  A cornet with a deep mouthpiece   or
c.  A fluegelhorn....

        I have to say that I love the sound of a fluegelhorn, under certain circumstances, and there is nothing quite like the sound of an all-brass band, which distinguishes between trumpets, cornets, and fluegelhorns, but to make a trumpet section sound totally dark(and usually quite un-centered, if the truth be known) is contrary to the principles and traditions of concert band timbre, imho...

Alan Rouse wrote:
> Yes, the wider mouthpieces place added demands on endurance, at first.  But if you
> stick with it, your body adapts.  Over time the endurance penalty fades.

Unfortunately, Alan, this isn't necessarily true...More often the case is such that players jumping to inappropriately sized mpcs develop seriously bad habits which can lead to injury, and even loss of playing ability....

Think of it in terms of shoe size....You wouldn't put a size thirteen shoe on a ten-year-old because it made his feet appear larger, and thus might be likely to make him a better basketball player, would you?

Or you wouldn't put adult-weight shoes on a pre-schooler in the hopes that he/she would develop stronger muscles(adapt) and thus become a better runner in the future....would you?

In both of the preceding examples, you'd be lucky if the child involved escaped serious injury, and yet band directors(and regretably, some trumpet teachers) persist in prescribing larger and larger mouthpieces for students, either in the mistaken impression that their sounds appear to be darker(in reality they're more often *deader*, with less overtones in the timbre) OR that putting them on the largest available mpc will *straighten out any embouchure problems*....

That's like attaching weights to the legs of a child with rickets in the hopes that they'll develop stronger bones(when in reality their bones will probably break from the stress)....

It's far more responsible, imho, to assign a student a mouthpiece based on the following factors:

a.  Age/length of study of the student
b.  Overall size and shape of the facial muscles
c.  Overall size/shape of lip tissues
d.  Responsiveness of lip tissues(ease of vibration)
e.  Tooth and jaw structure
f.  Pivot and/or angle necessitated by *e*
g.  Demands placed upon the student
 
> A wider mouthpiece lets a wider section of the lips vibrate and
> contribute to the sound.

Theoretically this is true, however, it depends on the responsiveness of the lip tissue...Someone whose epithelial layer of lip tissue is highly cornified(thick, relatively dried out surface layer of skin on lips) is less likely to succeed with this sort of approach and may, in fact, do better with a mouthpiece that is smaller in diameter, deeper in cup, bigger in throat(but not backbore), and has a wider, more rounded rim...

Someone whose lips are relatively thin, but very responsive could get away with playing on a very large rim or a very small rim, and could play deep or shallow, depending on their performance needs, the degree of practicing they've been doing, etc....

> I believe that the effect of a deeper cup is not identical to the
> effect of a wider cup.  Deep cups lead to a mellower kind of dark
> sound, whereas wider leads to a richer sound (dark without losing the
> harmonics, if that makes sense).

Again, depending on the lips themselves, the contrary may, in fact, be true...

> Maybe the wide mouthpieces are better suited to the more 'puckered'
> Maggio-monkey style embouchures, whereas the narrower mouthpieces are
> better suited to the rolled-in embouchures.

I think you're confusing diameter of cup with depth of cup, Alan....Shallower cups are more difficult to play with the Maggio style of rolling the lips outward(which tends to produce the additional overtones), but easier to play with lips that are rolled slightly inward...(Perhaps the best possible sound is that of a slightly rolled-in embouchure, with a deeper cup, and an appropriately sized and shaped rim)

Deeper cups are easier to play with the Maggio rolled-out type of embouchure, more difficult to play with lips rolled in(since there is more of a tendency to feel the lips collapsing into the bowl with a deeper cup)...

An option which may be preferable is that of opening the throat of the mouthpiece (and not necessarily the backbore, though backbores can also assist in coloring the sound)...Thus, the mouthpiece will feel like it can take more air, but the lips needn't feel like there's a vacuum in the bowl(if it's deeper), nor that they will *bottom-out*(if the cup is shallower...

> I wonder if there is a correlation between mouthpiece
> size and embouchure approach?

A successfully set-up embouchure is more likely to succeed, whatever the equipment available....

A poorly fit mouthpiece is likely to derail even relatively good chops, if care is not taken to pay attention to the process of playing in a way that will not *give-in* to the particular traps of whatever that particular mpc might be...

> And I wonder if there is a correlation
> between embouchure approach and lip configuration, tooth
> configuration, or other physical characteristics?

Precisely.  For some players there is never a need to even consider equipment--they are able to *just play* or *just judge approach via the sound produced*....

But for far many more players it becomes very important to ensure that the match between anatomy/physiology and equipment is made carefully and  responsibly....

> Maybe this is the source of many player's
> frustrations--a mismatch between their physical characteristics, the
> embouchure they were taught to use, and the mouthpiece they use?

Undoubtably...And a very good reason for teachers to become familiar with the anatomy and physiology of the embouchure, as well as literature, technical approaches, and stylistic considerations, and not just operate on the *listen and imitate* or *do as I say, not as I do* *or just tongue and blow, kid* approaches....

As I mentioned before, there are some *naturals* who are able to surmount any difficulties by virtue of sheer time spent in the practice room, but not everyone is so blessed....

God grant that, as trumpet teachers, we make every effort to understand our students' needs as well as their strengths, and help them to address the former and acknowledge and make use of the latter...

- --
Take Care!
Jeannie