Klarinet Archive - Posting 000144.txt from 1995/02

From: Jonathan Cohler <cohler@-----.NET>
Subj: LONG MESSAGE: My input on many aspects of the vibrato discussion
Date: Tue, 7 Feb 1995 02:11:46 -0500

I have been very interested in the vibrato discussion, because this is a
subject that I have studied for roughly two decades now. Before I decided to
post anything, I dutifully went back and read ALL of the prior postings on the
subject starting from January 1994, so that I would have a good frame of
reference.

There are many things I would like to comment on, propose, question, disagree
with, agree with, and explain, so I will try to do this succinctly and in a
sensible order. I believe that the vast majority of the information presented
here is new material to the list, so I hope it is not a waste of your time. I
have been careful to avoid rehashing material that was completely handled
already.

Because the document is somewhat long, I provide a brief outline here for your
reference. The complete document follows.

********************* OUTLINE ***********************

GENERAL CONCEPTS AND METAPHYSICS
1. Subjective matters and logical proof.
2. Objective matters.
3. Could vibrato possibly produce displeasure in people?
4. A good vibrato: one that can't be heard??
5. Evidence for physically pleasant effects of vibrato.

VIBRATO PRODUCTION
1. It's so damn difficult! No it's not...
2. Using the four vibrato production methods in combination.
3. Two common myths about vibrato.
4. Abdomen (diaphragm) vibrato @-----.

WHERE VIBRATO "SHOULD" AND "SHOULDN'T" BE USED
1. AKA Using vibrato at "appropriate" times -- Brahms, Mozart...
2. Using no vibrato makes the clarinet blend???

LEARNING/TEACHING VIBRATO

It ain't so hard. And I think we should teach it a lot more.

PHYSICS

1. An ideal tube closed at one end.
2. The clarinet.
3. Why the clarinet goes flat when you blow harder.
4. Cutoff frequency, and all those EVEN harmonics.
5. Driven systems.
6. The driving force behind the clarinet and inharmonic partials.
7. Vibrato emphasizes dissonances?????

MY HUMBLE OPINIONS

1. Vibrato is an essential tool.
2. Clarinet's range of tone color is limited.
3. Everybody loves vibrato (except clarinetists!).
4. Vibrato is natural, physical and direct.
5. Brahms, Mozart, all those guys loved it...

*********************** END OF OUTLINE ***************************************

Here we go...

******************************************************************************

GENERAL CONCEPTS AND METAPHYSICS

1. One cannot prove or disprove subjective matters with logic. By
definition, something subjective is "proceeding from or taking place within an
individual's mind such as to be unaffected by the external world" (American
Heritage Dictionary). Therefore, by definition, no logical argument can prove
or disprove that vibrato on clarinet sounds "good" or "bad", because whether
something sounds "good" or "bad" is totally subjective.

2. Objective matters, on the other hand are those "based on observable
phenomena; presented factually; of or having to do with a material object as
distinguished from a mental concept."

3. If vibrato on the clarinet actually did produce some observable,
measurable phenomena that caused "displeasure" to human beings in general,
then it follows that over large representative random samplings of people, the
percentage of people that found vibrato "displeasing" should be a constant.
Based on my long experience and various informal surveys, I have discovered
(and I challenge anyone to disprove this) that the percentage of non-
clarinetists in the general population (including all other musicians) that
find vibrato on the clarinet "displeasing" is vanishingly small. On the other
hand, I find that the vast majority of clarinetists do not like vibrato.

Clearly, the clarinetist population is not a representative sampling in this
regard. Why should this be?

It seems that the most likely explanation is that people do and think what
their teachers tell them to (to a first-order approximation) and there has
been a long, well-documented and adamant tradition of teaching that vibrato on
the clarinet is bad. The reasons behind this teaching have been wide and
varied and they have been discussed at length on this list, so I won't go into
them here (although I found the discussion of the anti black music sentiment
from the 40s and 50s particularly interesting).

Therefore, people are certainly free to feel--because it is a purely
subjective issue--that clarinet vibrato is "displeasing" in various settings,
but there is certainly NO physical, objective or observable basis for this
feeling. If there were, it wouldn't be only clarinetists that feel this way.
Rather it arises--as do many of peoples' feelings, beliefs, morals, and the
like--out of how clarinetists were raised and taught.

4. While our thinking on the vibrato issue has advanced marginally over the
past fifty years, in that many clarinetists don't issue blanket condemnations
anymore, the thinking hasn't changed as much as it seems on the surface. In
reading through, the piles of vibrato postings, over and over again I see
statements such as: "I enjoy some vibrato when it is subtle, but I personally
do not use it unless it is specifically asked for in the score," or "I find
the most pleasing is a very subtle, almost undetectable, slow vibrato on the
key note in a phrase."

Have you ever heard a violinist, cellist, soprano, oboist, flutist or the like
saying anything like this? Probably not. You probably have heard
discussions, of how to produce vibrato, and where to vary the speed, amplitude
or shape of the vibrato, but not how to make it unnoticeable.

Liking one particular kind of vibrato in a very limited section of a
particular kind of music, is not really much different from disliking vibrato.
I think the slight shift in attitude today comes from the fact that it is more
politically correct today to =say= that you like, and even =sometimes use=,
vibrato, but the fact is that the vast majority of clarinetists still do not
use, and not coincidentally, don't understand vibrato. We often dislike and
avoid the things we don't understand.

5. As mentioned in other postings, I believe there is substantial statistical
evidence (across many musics around the world, across at least two hundred
years) to support the hypothesis that vibrato produces physical phenomena of
some sort that do indeed induce sympathetic pleasurable response in the
listener.

VIBRATO PRODUCTION

1. Martin Brown said, "I think the reason that relatively few clarinet
players use vibrato is that it's so damn difficult! Compared to a string
instrument where you just wiggle your finger, ..."

Learning to do vibrato on the clarinet is no more difficult than learning to
play a chromatic scale. It requires careful instruction and careful practice.
And being married to a concert violinist, I can tell you that learning string
vibrato is much more difficult and takes many more years of practice.
Typically, string students take anywhere from five to ten years to begin
producing a decent, stable, good sounding vibrato. On the clarinet, I have
found that students can produce a decent vibrato within two years.

2. I won't rehash the entire discussion on the three or four methods of
vibrato production (depending on how you count), because they have all been
mentioned. What was not discussed very much except in passing in a quoted
passage from Jack Brymer, was that the most important step in creating a
flexible and expressive vibrato is being able to integrate all of the various
methods simultaneously, and pass seamlessly from one to another. Depending on
the basic impedance(s) of the note(s) being played, the pitch flexibility of
the note, as well as the dynamic level, range, and desired sound quality, one
can combine lip, throat and diaphragm (abdomen) vibrato in various quantities.
Always doing one kind or another at a fixed speed generates just as
uninteresting a sound as a constant non-vibrato tone.

3. Two common myths: (1) vibrato masks a bad sound, (2) vibrato masks bad
intonation.

Tone quality as observed by listeners (and there have been many research
papers on this subject) is basically a function of harmonic content. Vibrato
modulates the amplitude and frequency of a note slightly. In a classical
vibrato, one attempts to "keep the note in focus" at all times during the
vibrato. Keeping the note in focus translates directly into the measurable
act of keeping the harmonic content relatively constant. In a jazz context,
on the other hand, one purposely allows the note to go in and out of focus,
which dramatically varies the tone quality of the note over the course of the
vibrato. Therefore, the vibrato is used in jazz to actually exaggerate the
"badness" of the sound. That's what makes it sound jazzy. In classical
vibrato (at least by my definition), there is no change in the "tone quality"
during a vibrato. And certainly, there is no way that a vibrato can enhance
the tone quality. In fact, one of the difficult parts about classical vibrato
is making sure that the sound always stays in focus.

The perceived intonation of a note with vibrato is the average pitch of the
vibrato. If the average is high the note will sound sharp. If the average is
low it will sound flat. The vibrato does nothing to mask out of tune playing.
(The only exception to this statement, is perhaps at the very onset of a note.
If you hear a note is out of tune when you play it, and adjust the center
pitch to the correct pitch within a half cycle of the vibrato, it is very hard
for the listener to detect this change. Of course, this is basically true
without vibrato as well.)

4. Many people noted that abdomen (diaphragm) vibrato produces only amplitude
variation and not pitch variation. This is not entirely true as can be
verified with a Fourier analyzer. I'll discuss the physics in more detail
below, but for here suffice it say that as one blows louder on the clarinet
the perceived pitch gets flatter. Even assuming that the player has a nice
firm embouchure, this is still the case. The amount of pitch change will
depend directly on the amplitude of pressure variations in the vibrato. It is
true, that this pitch variation will generally be smaller for a given amount
of physical effort compared to lip vibrato. But nonetheless there IS a pitch
change. (See below for the physics of why.)

WHERE VIBRATO "SHOULD" AND "SHOULDN'T" BE USED

1. Many people noted that using vibrato is OK sometimes, but not in Mozart!
Other people feel it shouldn't be used in Brahms. And on it goes. If people
feel it's OK in general, but not in particular instances, then what are the
reasons??? Among all those postings, I didn't see a single reason listed
other than "that's my opinion." Again, we are back to the subjective.

I prefer to take a more objective look at this issue. What did the composer
want, or specify, or not specify (thereby leaving it up to the performer), and
what were the practices of the day, and particularly of the performers for
whom the composer wrote the work? Here's an interesting note on the Brahms
clarinet works.

The quotation from Brymer's book on Muhlfeld's relatively heavy use of vibrato
has already been mentioned several times. What has not been mentioned is the
following:

* Muhlfeld was not a clarinetist originally.
* He entered the Meiningen orchestra in 1873 as its @-----.
Yup, that's right, he was a violinist.
* He taught himself to play the clarinet (i.e. no teacher prejudices)
* He became principal clarinetist of the orchestra in 1876
* Hans von Bulow became conductor of the orchestra in 1880 and later
appointed Muhlfeld as the assistant conductor.
* Brahms first noticed Muhlfeld in a trip to hear the orchestra in
1890. This was at a point in Brahms life when he had decided not to
compose anymore. And he had certainly heard all of the great
European clarinetists of the day in his travels.
* In March 1891, he wrote to Clara Schumann "It is impossible to play
the clarinet better than Herr Muhlfeld does here."
* In July 1891, he wrote to Clara Schumann the Muhlfeld is "the best
wind player I know."

Given that Muhlfeld was a violinist/conductor/self-taught clarinetist, it
seems consistent that he would use a vibrato. Further, given that Brahms was
a jaded, retiring composer who had heard all the great players of Europe by
the time he was enraptured with Muhlfeld, it is hard to believe that he was
captured by Muhlfeld's technique alone. His use of the terms "Fraulein
Klarinette" and "prima donna" to describe Muhlfeld also implies that he viewed
him as an operatic soprano.

All of this points to the likely conclusion, that it was, in fact, the very
use of a very noticeable, continuous vibrato that is largely responsible for
inspiring Brahms to write the great clarinet works.

Thus the next time you hear yourself saying, "I don't think one should use
vibrato in Brahms," stop and think what @-----.

As for Mozart, last time I spoke with Charlie Neidich, he gave me some
information, of which I cannot recall the details right now, that indicates
Stadler may have used a noticeable continuous vibrato as well! I'll get the
details from Charlie, if people are interested.

2. One of the strangest and most illogical statements I have read in this
discussion is that orchestral woodwind sections produce a homogeneous sound,
@-----. There is certainly observable
physical evidence to prove the opposite of this statement. The fact that the
clarinet uses no vibrato in a section of instruments that all use vibrato
makes the clarinet sound more easily distinguishable by the listener.
Similarly, if one instrument in a group attacks notes in a different fashion,
it will be more easily distinguished by the listener. All of this has been
studied and proven in PhD theses. Now, that says nothing of the aesthetic,
=subjective= judgment as to whether it is better to have the clarinet sound
stand out from the woodwind section. But it is certain that lack of vibrato
on the clarinet WILL make it stand out from a group of woodwind instruments
using vibrato. Imagine a string quartet where only the first violinist uses
no vibrato. Does that make him =blend= better? You may like the effect, but
it is certainly not blending. In fact, when string quartets work on blending
there sound, they spend many hours practicing to match vibrato (speed,
intensity, width, and shape--not all vibrato is sinusoidal).

LEARNING/TEACHING VIBRATO

Now we come to the problem which was nailed on the head by Nichelle Crocker.
Teachers don't teach vibrato. This is unfortunate, because vibrato is just
like any other technical aspect of playing an instrument. It needs to be
learned. It is not a natural act. If it was, you would see monkeys playing
clarinet. It is easy to teach, and easy to learn (Easy is of course a
relative term. Let's say easy compared to string vibrato.) But without
practice and proper technique, you'll waste an awful lot of time trying to
figure out how to do it, and most people will never figure out how to do it
well.

I have a few recommendations for rectifying this gaping hole in clarinet
training that currently exists worldwide:

* Clarinet teachers should start teaching vibrato. Especially, at
the college level.
* Even if you don't like to use vibrato yourself, you should not
deprive your students of basic technique, because of your own
prejudices.
* If you don't know how to do vibrato, find someone who does and
start learning.
* Let's have a regular session at every ICA conference from now on
on vibrato production, usage, techniques, etc...
* While I'm on my soap box, let's add circular breathing and double
tonguing to the list. These are also badly neglected on the
clarinet.

PHYSICS

There was some partially correct (and therefore partially incorrect)
discussion of the physics of clarinets during the vibrato discussion. Having
been a physics major in college, and having done a fair amount of study of the
physics of musical instruments, I wanted to clarify the basics.

1. An ideal straight tube closed at one end and open at the other end has
only odd harmonic partials (sometimes called overtones). In other words, the
modes of the system are f, 3f, 5f, etc. where f is the fundamental frequency
defined by f=v/4L, v is the velocity of sound in air, and L is the length of
the tube.

2. The clarinet is NOT an ideal straight tube. The major differences are the
flared bell and the tone holes.

3. The flared bell and the tone holes conspire to make all the partials
(overtones) on the clarinet flat. As you move to higher partials they get
more and more flat. THIS IS THE REASON THE CLARINET SOUNDS FLATTER WHEN YOU
BLOW LOUDER. IT IS BECAUSE AS YOU GET LOUDER YOU ARE ADDING MORE AND MORE OF
THE FLAT UPPER PARTIALS TO THE SOUND. THIS IS NOT TRUE OF MOST OTHER
INSTRUMENTS.

4. The tone holes create another deviation from the ideal tube. For
frequencies with wavelengths that are roughly the same size as the holes, the
clarinet no longer behaves like a tube closed at one end. This frequency
cutoff point (called the "cutoff frequency") is around 1500Hz or in musical
terms that is around a double high G# on the clarinet. Above this cutoff
point the clarinet spectrum has roughly equal amounts of =even= and odd
partials. So the odd partial description of the clarinet really only holds
true up to 1500Hz, which, for example, is roughly the =fundamental= frequency
of a double high G#.

As another example, take the third-space C on the clarinet (concert Bb). This
is a frequency of 466Hz. The first partial of substantial amplitude will be
at 3*466 or 1400Hz minus a bit After that there will be substantial component
of 4*466 (minus a bit more), then 5*466, etc. You can see that the odd-
harmonic-dominant description is really VERY inaccurate for MOST of the range
of the clarinet.

5. It IS true that when you drive any physical system with a sinusoidal
input, it will vibrate ONLY at that frequency. The amplitude of that
vibration will be a function of the driving force and the Q (or resonance
response curve) of the system. If the system has a sharp resonance at or near
the driving frequency, you will get a large amplitude output. If you drive it
at a frequency far away from the sharp resonance, you will get a low amplitude
output.

6. Now to answer the seeming paradox about how you can get inharmonic (or
non-integer-multiple harmonics) from a driven system. The answer is that the
driving force coming into the clarinet is not a simple sinusoidal driving
force. If it were, then as I described in 4 above, the air column would
vibrate ONLY at that sinusoidal driving frequency at an amplitude determined
by the input force and the resonance curve.

When we blow into the mouthpiece the air flows against the reed and over the
top of the reed into the opening between the reed and mouthpiece. This
driving force is essentially a "white noise" driver. To verify this for
yourself, blow into the instrument at a medium speed without putting any lip
pressure on the reed. You'll hear a shhhhhhhhhhhhh sound. That's basically
white noise.

Ideal white noise contains equal components of all frequencies. A spectral
analysis of the driving force we provide gives roughly equal components of a
wide range of frequencies. We are actually driving the system simultaneously
at most all frequencies!

Therefore, the resonance response curve determines which frequencies are
selected. Those frequencies at the resonant partials are amplified and others
are damped. The partials are flat (lower than integer multiples of the
fundamental) because of the geometry of the instrument as described above.

7. Joshua Proschan said "A vibrato emphasizes the dissonances between the
overtones". I can't imagine what this could possibly mean. I doubt that
there is a quantitative description of this anywhere, but if there is, please
let me know.

MY HUMBLE OPINIONS

These are last, and definitely least important, but now finally to my
@-----. I preface
everything by IMHO...

1. I believe that vibrato, in all its forms, used both subtly and overtly,
big and small, wide and narrow, fast and slow, is an essential tool in playing
the clarinet, without which one can achieve only a small fraction of the
expressive capabilities of the clarinet.

2. With a given reed, mouthpiece, clarinet and dynamic level, the range of
tone colors (leaving out special effects such as flutter tonguing) that are
achievable without vibrato are VERY limited. (This, by the way, I believe is
fairly well documented in the acoustics literature, so it probably belongs up
in my discussion of physics, but it's too late at night to change now.)

3. Audiences of non-musicians, and non-clarinetist musicians overwhelmingly
prefer and enjoy the sound of vibrato on the clarinet. These people
constitute 99% of the audiences that we play for. We should listen to what
they are saying.

4. Vibrato makes a natural, physical, direct connection to the listener.

5. Brahms loved it, Mozart loved it and that's good enough for me.

Hope you got something out of this. Looking forward to your comments, flames
and the like.

-----------------
Jonathan Cohler
cohler@-----.net

   
     Copyright © Woodwind.Org, Inc. All Rights Reserved    Privacy Policy    Contact charette@woodwind.org