Klarinet Archive - Posting 000099.txt from 1994/02
From: Joshua Proschan <0004839378@-----.COM>
Subj: Re: vibrato
Date: Wed, 9 Feb 1994 18:58:00 -0500
Subject: re: vibrato
Two observations: First, the use of vibrato is a matter of convention
for most instruments. There apparently were periods when players did
not use vibrato (except as an ornament), and there were periods when
they used it continuously. I suspect that a violinist or oboist who
attempted to play in the old tradition, without vibrato, would be
treated the same way Kell was treated.
Second, the question really is why clarinetists do not share the
predominant attitude towards vibrato. I doubt you could get a group of
flutists, violinists, ... involved in this sort of discussion. (Or
pianists, for reasons that may be relevant :-) Why did clarinetists
buck the trend to vibrato?
The answer, I think, lies in what Pino was trying to say.
-----------------------------------------
A brief digression: Dan Leeson writes:
> But guys like Jay Heiser and Cary Karp see right through all that fancy,
> fancy and go to the heart of the matter at once; which is this, when
> you don't have any facts, talk fancy, talk scientific, use terms like
> even partials dissapearing into cyberspace, or even better, hyper
> glomtronic simulation of pseudo vibratory pulsations. By doing this,
> you are sure to get out of town before they find out there are no
> bullets in your gun. Such knowledge is valuable indeed.
>
> Thanks Jay and Cary for helping me to realize that I am not nearly as
> stupid as I thought I was after reading David Pino's comments on
> vibrato.
>
Sorry Dan, you were right the first time. I couldn't locate my copy
of Pino and will not comment on the accuracy or clarity of his
exposition. If it was poor, that does not make it pseudo-scientific
mumbo-jumbo, Dan---that honor goes to your absurd dismissal of
anything you don't understand. Sarcasm doesn't make you right, it
just makes you look foolish. If you didn't understand Pino, did you
try reading up on the acoustics? Benade's treatise on woodwind
acoustics, for example? Did you try asking a physicist? If Pino did
a poor job of writing, criticize that; don't trash the whole thing.
End of digression.
-----------------------------------------
The clarinet's spectrum emphasizes the odd harmonics, although the even
ones are present; and it has a wider distribution of energy in the upper
harmonics than most other instruments do. These harmonics are not the
simple integer multiples of the fundamental that elementary textbooks
describe; this results from the clarinet bore being relatively larger
compared to the length for the higher frequencies. A similar effect in
piano strings leads to the dilemma of whether to tune octaves to the
fundamental of the lower note, or to its first partial (which is a bit
higher). The former sounds a bit sour, the latter spreads the octaves
and makes life hard for for ensembles with piano and winds.
A vibrato emphasizes the dissonances between the overtones; and the
higher the overtone, the greater this effect. Thus a flute or oboe,
which uses mostly the lower partials, is not affected as much as a
clarinet that has a lot more acoustic energy in the hogher overtones.
This probably explains why vibrato was standard for jazz clarinetists,
whose open mouthpiece and soft reed tends to favor the lower overtones;
and why jazz saxophonists seem to have dropped vibrato as their
mouthpieces changed to produce a tone with more emphasis on the upper
partials.
Another part of the answer is in the traditional setup: close French
mouthpiece and relatively hard reed. With this setup, it is much harder
to use a jaw or lip vibrato while maintaining a consistent tone quality
than with an open mouthpiece and soft reed. This is not the overtone
effect I described above; it is a purely technical problem. Diaphragm
or throat vibratos are possible, but are more difficult to develop and
control.
Joshua H. Proschan Internet: jproschan@-----.com
