 The Clarinet BBoard
|
Author: calvinc
Date: 2003-09-15 05:41
How do i do that? =) could i get some pointers please? Thanks much! =D
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: theclarinetist
Date: 2003-09-15 06:42
I personally use a natural air vibrato just to augment certain notes or phrases. DON'T do it with your jaw like a saxophone, and don't do it like a flute and sound like an opera singer!
Don Hite
DISCLAIMER: This is just my opinion... some people like a lot of vibrato on clarinet, some hate it completely and never use it. It's pretty much a personal choice... Also, I'm referring to using it in classical music. If you're wondering about jazz, I haven't a clue (I can make a jazz vibrato, but i don't play jazz and have never studied it so I wouldn't know the technical aspects of it at all).
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Synonymous Botch
Date: 2003-09-15 12:05
I suppose you should do what comes most naturally, and moderate that to taste? No sense trying to sound like someone else, is there?
My vibrato is from the diaphragm, and is not too broad.
I use it only on longer passages, in quieter dynamics, when little else goes on in the phrase. I think of Sarah Vaughn, and play with an ear to grace.
******
Broad, loud vibrato can come off as raucous. I like a tight vibrato that doesn't vary from pitch much more than 1/8th (10 cents or so).
I don't care for terribly fast or ponderously slow vibrato.
****
My teacher of saxophone is a multi-reed player, including double reeds.
He uses BOTH a rocking motion of the lower lip and control of his diaphragm.
There is no consensus amongst critics about what sounds good.
I heard Ricardo Morales several weeks ago, and in the chamber setting he employed vibrato to go with the strings.
In his duet, accompanied by piano, less vibrato was apparent.
**
In short, I don't suppose it should be used all the time, and when used,
applied sparingly.
*
Otherwise, it's like a picnic table laden with variations on Mayonnaise...
Post Edited (2003-09-15 13:19)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: hans
Date: 2003-09-15 13:38
The easiest way to produce pitch vibrato on the clarinet or saxophone is
by a gentle chewing up and down or back and forth by the lower jaw.
1. Start without the instrument by saying "wow".
2. Connect a series of "wows" as in "wowowow".
3. Repeat the second step while blowing the instrument.
4. Gradually increase the speed of the "wowowow".
Pitch vibrato is an even waver, in both frequency of fluctuation and
width of pitch variance. The pitch should vary equal amounts above and
below the true pitch while the ear takes the mid point.
Vibrato gives life, warmth, and beauty to a tone and provides
contrast with "straight" tones. It can make certain notes stand
out.
There are 2 other types of vibrato: intensity, and timbre, but they
are not commonly used.
Speed of vibrato will depend on the expression required, but is
usually less than 5 to 8 pulsations per second. Slow vibrato will
seem to have wider pitch fluctuation than fast vibrato.
Vibrato is easier on some notes, usually the higher notes, than on
others.
I hope that you will find this useful.
Hans
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Don Berger
Date: 2003-09-15 14:41
This is about the best discussion of vibrato I recall, re: the differing types, the how and when to use it. I tried to develop the pitch "type" for sax and the "breath-pulsation" type for oboe, with some success, and found I preferred limiting their use to long notes, like the best vocalists do. Don
Thanx, Mark, Don
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: William
Date: 2003-09-15 14:54
On flute, I do it with my diaphragm. But on my single reeds, I use my jaw with a variety of subtile to "not so" chewing actions. I try to keep the upper "wave" of the vibrato "in tune", not letting it go sharp as many singers are prone to do.
Another "method" of vibrato not discussed as yet (and not necessarily recommended) was used by an old local jazz clarinetist--a very good Albert System player, BTW. In addition to jaw and diaphragm, he also used to shake his right or left hand to add vib. effect to certain long notes, holding his clarinet straight out for visual emphasis as well.
Used with taste and kept within the style context of the music being performed, the vibrato "bottom line" may simply be, "If it sounds good, it is good".
(and also, "Whatever works, is correct")
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: D Dow
Date: 2003-09-15 16:07
Vibrato is often a danger topic to some.
It should never become a pitch oscillation.
David Dow
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: D Dow
Date: 2003-09-15 16:13
No matter whether or not you use vibrato, it has to be elastic and naturally a part of the music and phrasing.
I don't use vibrato but employ it when either conductor or piece requires it. The worst thing is excessive vibrato which become an annoyance and is cloying. This is not to replace solid technique and stylistic playing ...
vibrato can become monotonous and annoying as dynamicless playing
I feel some is good, but too much is deadly. As to whether it makes one's tone warmer is a bit of subjective philosophy which.....well many have argued this one so I will stay out.
For all beginnners and intermediate players I try to have students achieve a solid technique ....once players stray into using alot of vibrato its hard to get them out of it....
then of course they stop working on technique and staccato and its back to the drawing board....
David Dow
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: tww
Date: 2003-09-15 16:41
I consider the basic, ideal, legit clarinet tone quality to be vibratoless.
However, I strongly disagree with David Dow's statement, "It should never become a pitch oscillation." I think the goal of vibrato (when used) is pitch oscillation. Many options and opinions have been offered here, but none are the gospel truth (least of all mine.) It's a matter of musical taste.
Make yourself sound how you want to sound.
Two examples of appropriate use of pitch-varying vibrato in legit music (IMO):
- Some spots in Prokofiev's Overture on Hebrew Themes
- The Spanish-sounding sections in the 3rd mvt of Mendelssohn's 2nd Concertpiece.
- tww
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Mark Charette
Date: 2003-09-15 16:45
D Dow wrote:
> It should never become a pitch oscillation.
Vibrato most certainly IS pitch oscillation. It is the very definition of vibrato!
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: DAVE
Date: 2003-09-15 16:45
Once a student has mastered the technique of producing a suitable vibrato, in what ways can you teach the student to use it tastefully, i.e. not simply a steady four sixteenth to quarter note pulse?
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: D Dow
Date: 2003-09-15 19:13
I mean Undulation where the change in intensity is so noticed that it changes pitch to the point is going out of tune
David Dow
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: D Dow
Date: 2003-09-15 19:20
I tend to look at a number of elements in style of a piece before I choose
to use vibrato. With Brahms I can most definitely say I think clarinet
vibrato is very risky here...especially in his orchestral works where the
texture is pretty thick to begin with. A player who I regard quite highly
in terms of taste and his use of vibrato in every way is George Peterson of
the Concertgebouw...a truly inspired player who uses a light vibrato and has
an inspired tone to boot!
His Brahms playing truly is superb....But on top of this very musical and
well prepared in everything he performs...no easy matter for an orchestra
that busy.
I will say for my own personal taste I tend to not use vibrato...I know that
the answer may seem illogical but the reason is mainly I find it does not
suit most of the repetoire I play. This is generally orchestral music, and
therefore I try to match soundwise what my 2cd player does respectively.
There are some great solos in the repetoire like Rhapsody in blue which
without a bit of this it becomes like that awful muzaak one hears in the
malls all too often-pooh!
The inherent danger of vibrato is if it becomes an undulation in pitch, this
is very poor taste and quite ugly. I sometimes think that flute players
have trouble with this. More of an ah-ah-ah quality which is slow,
especially in the flute low register notes.
As to the rationale why I personally don't use vibrato except on occassion-
because I find without vibrato I have more control over the pitch....that
being said I also know some players who are the inverse. And these a
professionals as well and fine players may I add.
Throat vibrato, jaw vibrato and the old mystic diaphram vibrato are all
things real and valid. I can also say I am not sure about what any composer
thinks in terms of vibrato. but of course that why there is piano music!!!
By undulation I mean an ugly wide variance in the tone from above and below the true pitch...sadly the danger of overdoing vibrato is greater than one thinks. Then the intonation is so out either below or above true pitch it takes on vulgarity....
David Dow
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: D Dow
Date: 2003-09-15 19:29
Ps. If one is noticing a perceptible change in pitch due to the vibrato as one is playing a held sound then it certainly would be an extreme vibrato.
Taste is something that can't taught always....
I AGREE than vibrato can add to the phrase or warmth of a given sound, but I would also say I never use it in fast passages or running 16ths! If it becomes a flashy gimmick one sprays on excessively then I would certainly be one of the first to enter the exits. Players like dePeyer and Wright could play beautifully with/and without vibrato. It is something that is momentarily added with disgression, rather than painting on top of the sound...these are more or less artistic matters and of course prone to great deals of furious debate....
David Dow
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Clarence Beale
Date: 2003-09-15 19:53
Mark Charette wrote:
"Vibrato most certainly IS pitch oscillation. It is the very definition of vibrato!"
I can understand that this is definitely true for a string instrument like a violin because of the way the left hand finger moves on the fingerboard to produce vibrato. But Mark's statement raises an interesting theoretical question about the clarinet. I say this because of a statement that Ken Shaw reported back in January from a master class by Charles Neidich at Mannes. Ken wrote:
"Neidich also said that the clarinet does *not* naturally play sharp at ppp and flat at fff. It seems to do so because players make an embouchure mistake, relaxing to get more volume and squeezing to get softer, and also by changing the oral cavity."
I'm sure that Neidich is correct when he says there are clarinet players who make an embouchure mistake and change the oral cavity. But is he correct when he says "the clarinet does *not* naturally play sharp at ppp and flat at fff"?
Suppose there is a clarinet player who doesn't make these mistakes. Suppose that clarinet player holds everything constant except air pressure. Using the muscles of the diaphragm the air pressure is allowed to oscillate quickly between two SLIGHTLY different air pressures. The two different air pressures create two different degress of loudness for the tone. Is that vibrato? If so then do the two different degress of loudness for the tone have slightly different pitches?
I think of an organ pipe. If the air pressure for an organ pipe is changed then the pitch of the tone produced by the organ pipe is changed. Is this true for the clarinet? If it is true then two slightly different degress of loudness for a tone do have slightly different pitches and Mark is correct in saying that pitch oscillation is the very definition of vibrato for the clarinet. It would also seem to imply that the clarinet does naturally play sharp at ppp and flat at fff contrary to Neidich as reported by Ken.
Regards,
Clarence Beale
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: hans
Date: 2003-09-15 19:54
Calvin asked how to play with vibrato, not what everyone's opinion of vibrato was. That is mostly a matter of personal taste and the requirements of the piece being played, and not particularly relevant to the question; e.g., I don't care for Guy Lombardo, but many people do.
IMO, this thread has outlived its usefulness. Let's move on.
Hans
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Mark Charette
Date: 2003-09-15 20:03
Clarence Beale wrote:
> Ken wrote:
>
> "Neidich also said that the clarinet does *not* naturally play
> sharp at ppp and flat at fff. It seems to do so because players
> make an embouchure mistake, relaxing to get more volume and
> squeezing to get softer, and also by changing the oral cavity."
Neidich is most certainly wrong in this - experiments with an artificial embouchure have proven that. Art Benade in fact built a "for fun" clarinet with opposite traits - flat at ppp and sharp at fff. Which, of course, confused all comers.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Henry
Date: 2003-09-15 20:05
This may have been discussed here many times before, but can anyone tell us anything about the origin of the apparently prevalent thought, at least in classical music, that "one should not use vibrato on the clarinet"? Is it just "tradition"? I believe that there is no other instrument (with the obvious exception of the piano, etc.) where this "rule" applies. Vibrato is certainly taken for granted in the most basic musical instrument, namely the human voice. If it is a "rule" just for the clarinet, isn't it time for it to be broken (always tastefully, of course)! Let's take off the shackles!
Henry
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Carol Dutcher
Date: 2003-09-15 20:29
I was told at an early age that I had a natural vibratto. It is why I never got into classical music but stuck with jazz. I would be very uptight if I had to try and control a natural inclination.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Liquorice
Date: 2003-09-15 21:41
Henry wrote: "Vibrato is certainly taken for granted in the most basic musical instrument, namely the human voice."
That was not always the case. Vibrato was considered to be an ornament up until the 19th century, even by singers. The idea of singing (or playing) with a consistent vibrato hasn't been around that long.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Henry
Date: 2003-09-15 22:57
Yes, I agree that, say, Gregorian chant is free of vibrato (and I like it in that particular context) but we are indeed talking about a genre that is several centuries old. Things have happened since then!
Henry
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Clarence Beale
Date: 2003-09-16 01:12
An interesting article on the history of vibrato in the twentieth century was written by Roger Norrington and published in the February 16, 2003, issue of the New York Times under the title "Time to Rid Orchestras of the Shakes."
He says that "vibrato did not become common in European or American orchestras until the 1930's." He also thinks that Fritz Kreisler was a major influence on the new trend of using vibrato on orchestral instruments including the strings. Many assume that vibrato was used widely for centuries but that apparently was not the case. Norrington appeals to evidence on early recordings as support for his argument.
The article can be read at:
http://www.bach-cantatas.com/Topics/Vibrato-2.htm
If you scroll down about halfway in the file you will find the article under the header "On vibrato in orchestras."
Clarence Beale
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Katrina
Date: 2003-09-16 03:40
Mark writes: 'Art Benade in fact built a "for fun" clarinet with opposite traits - flat at ppp and sharp at fff. Which, of course, confused all comers.'
Interesting...do you have more info on this machine?
Katrina
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: LeWhite
Date: 2003-09-16 03:55
I personally think vibrato is the way forward for the clarinet in this day and age. Being a relatively new instrument, I feel it is still evolving. With so many opinions and different ways of playing it, one needs to be flexible and carefully consider the tone colour of what they're playing, and look at the different tones and timbres they're creating.
I agree - in something like, say, Brahms, extremely subtle vibrato on SOME passages may just be the difference between just another performance of a very popular work, or being original and remembered by the audience.
The key is subtlety, in anything really, but especially applies to vibrato on the clarinet.
Some HATE vibrato, and feel that the clarinet is complete and produces a satisfying tone without it. I think that to stop yourself from being just another clarinetist, you need something original, something special and unique about your sound. Vibrato might just be one of them.
I still think Stoltzman is an awesome clarinetist and musician, and absoloutely adore his original and different way of playing, and his use of vibrato. I think in some ways, maybe he's ahead of his time? Something to think about, anyway.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: BobD
Date: 2003-09-16 12:47
I am trying to recall any written music where the composer specifically calls for a vibrato from the clarinet....but I can't. In my experience vibrato was considered, by conductors and teachers, to represent a lack of control by the player and thus to be avoided. Like most other musical adornments I am of the opinion that it has its place.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Liquorice
Date: 2003-09-16 15:50
Glinka writes vibrato a few times in the clarinet part of his Trio Pathetique.
Henry wrote: "Yes, I agree that, say, Gregorian chant is free of vibrato (and I like it in that particular context) but we are indeed talking about a genre that is several centuries old. Things have happened since then!"
Yes, that's true, but they have happened a lot more recently than people seem to realise. Which brings into question how appropriate it is to play with constant vibrato on any instrument.
The article that Clarence listed is very interesting. Thanks Clarence!
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Jamietalbot
Date: 2003-09-16 18:55
Vibrato on the clarinet certainly isn,t a new thing.Listen to recordings of
Reg Kell and Jack Brymer and you,ll hear a vocalistic approach to the clarinet
that flautists,oboists and bassoonists would employ as a matter of course.
It,s also been said that Richard Mullfield used vibrato on Brahms' clarinet
works,over a hundred years ago.
It,s up to the individual performer to decide what,s right for him/her.
There are no hard fast rules about interpretation and rightly so.
Go with your heart!
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Liquorice
Date: 2003-09-16 20:16
Jamietalbot wrote: "Vibrato on the clarinet certainly isn,t a new thing."
It depends what you mean by "new". You mentioned two 20th century clarinetists from Britain, and Richard Mühlfeld (for who Brahms wrote his clarinet works at the very end of the 19th century). Henry was talking about music from Gregorian chant onwards.
Joachim (the violinist for whom Brahms wrote most of his violin music) warned against the habitual use of vibrato in his "Violinschule". He considered the steady tone to be the rule, and vibrato as an ornament only to be used in certain places. His recordings from 1903 show that he often held long notes without any vibrato, which is a very different approach from the modern school of string playing.
Playing with a continuous vibrato was adopted in different places at different times. Certain instruments adopted it earlier than others. The clarinet is still one of the instruments that hasn't taken on vibrato as a universal style. Personally I like the use of vibrato on the clarinet. But it is a quite a new thing in the history of music, and an even more recent development in clarinet playing!
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
The Clarinet Pages
|
 |
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
