 The Clarinet BBoard
|
Author: BobD
Date: 2003-10-04 16:55
The answer is very subjective. Some people use it, some don't. Listen to Elvis Costello's singing.....he loves it. Symphony conductors generally don't dig it.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: hans
Date: 2003-10-04 19:32
It is common in specific cases, i.e., in playing "popular" or commercial music and sometimes in impressionistic music to color tones.
Hans
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: John J. Moses
Date: 2003-10-04 19:53
FYI:
Regarding BobD comments...
I am featured on Elvis Costello's latest CD, "North," and I occasionally use vibrato. As a general rule, I use vibrato as the music dictates. Also, if a conductor or contemporary composer specifically asks for vibrato, I try to accommodate with an appropriate style vibrato.
All the finest clarinetists here in NYC use vibrato on special occasions.
It is really a very personal choice.
JJM
Légère Artist
Clark W. Fobes Artist
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: clarinet87
Date: 2003-10-04 20:07
It really depends on what piece you play. If you were to play Rhapsody in Blue by Gershwin, then using vibrato would be fine. However, if you were to play Mozart's Concerto for Clarinet, using vibrato may not sound as good. It's mainly jazz clarinetists who use vibrato. Clarinetists in symphony orchestras usually don't employ vibrato because it just doesn't sound as good. Instruments like violins, violas, cellos, saxaphone, flute, and oboe practice vibrato--but not clarinet. The clarinet is unique because it's tone is beatiful without the vibrato. Also, it really depends on personal taste; some musicians like hearing vibrato while others don't.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Bob A
Date: 2003-10-04 20:42
And some of us "old geezers" with wobbly jaws have little or no choice.
Bob A
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: theclarinetist
Date: 2003-10-04 21:26
Some people use more subtle vibrato in many pieces other than jazz.... Stoltzman is notorious for it and many people dislike him because of this (though just how subtle his is could certainly be debated!!), but I've heard more "straight-laced" performers use subtle vibrato to augment a couple phrases... For example, in a recording of a Weber Concerto I have, Walter Boeykens uses vibrato occassionally as an expressive tool. There are many other similar instances, but I can't recall them all right now.
It's not used in ensemble playing much because it doesn't blend as well, I think. As far as playing solo goes, I personally don't mind a tiny bit of vibrato in lyrical passages such as the 2nd mov. of the Mozart (though it could very easily become overdone). Properly used vibrato (in my opinion) gives one's playing a vocal-like quality that can be very pretty (not like flute vibrato, which sounds like your playing into a fan.... but just a natural vibrato).
As far as a definitive answer, there isn't one. As soon as we figure out if the chicken or the egg was first, then we'll tackle the vibrato controversty
DH
theclarinetist@yahoo.com
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: BobD
Date: 2003-10-04 23:00
JJM....congrats on working with Elvis. I was referring to his voice, by the way.
"Clarinetists in symphony orchestras usually don't employ vibrato because it just doesn't sound as good. Instruments like violins, violas, cellos, saxaphone, flute, and oboe practice vibrato--but not clarinet. "
Harrumph and bushwah!
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: CPW
Date: 2003-10-04 23:29
The British use it extensively....think Kell et al., and of course it was the use of clarinet vibrato that directly influenced their preference for tea and culminated in the decline of the British Empire.
Oddly, the French sing with a pronounced vibrato, yet
eschew vibrato clarinet playing (old Lefebre recording proves this), accounting for the rise of French enology and the LaRousse recipe for Rana pipiens.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Bob A
Date: 2003-10-05 00:22
CPW---"The British use it extensively" .coupled no doubt with their necessity to keep a stiff upper lip and the refusal of the US Dept. Of Agriculture to allow Haggis into the USA as foodstuff, mandating it could only be admited as fertilizer! Bob A
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: CPW
Date: 2003-10-05 00:58
I concur.
In fact, our language skills have declined since a more common word was substituted in the expression: "The Haggis really hit the fan."
Bob, it is the fact that Haggis is not eaten here that accounts for our diminution in status as a world power.
Another factor is the substituion of jelly for smoked salmon (lox) on bagels, together with the addition of berries and sweets to the time honored recipe instead of onion or garlic.
Put that in your clarinet and vibrato it.
(yes, I made vibrato into a verb).
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: ned
Date: 2003-10-05 01:56
" Clarinetists in symphony orchestras usually don't employ vibrato because it just doesn't sound as good. Instruments like violins, violas, cellos, saxaphone, flute, and oboe practice vibrato--but not clarinet. The clarinet is unique because it's tone is beatiful without the vibrato. Also, it really depends on personal taste; some musicians like hearing vibrato while others don't."
" It's not used in ensemble playing much because it doesn't blend as well, I think. As far as playing solo goes, I personally don't mind a tiny bit of vibrato in lyrical passages such as the 2nd mov. of the Mozart (though it could very easily become overdone). Properly used vibrato (in my opinion) gives one's playing a vocal-like quality that can be very pretty (not like flute vibrato, which sounds like your playing into a fan.... but just a natural vibrato)."
re quote #1:
Why does it not sound good? You mention strings (as being good?) I personally think vibrato adds life to any brass or woodwind performance. If strings are "allowed" to do it - why not b&w? Is a violin's tone beautiful too, without the vibrato?
re quote #2:
Why does it not blend well? Here again strings are mentioned (and they blend well [despite use of vibrato] presumably?).
I believe that b&w should use vibrato every bit as much as strings, although of course, this might upset conductors (some or most perhaps?). I reckon it's just a "classical" hangover from some point in the past. At what point in the development of music was it deemed OK for strings to use vibrato and b&w not to do so?
It's probably why I prefer classical string music to b&w classical pieces - with string quartets being a particularly favourite combination, to my ear. Vibrato adds life and emotion to any instrument and any performance of an instrument, totally devoid of its use, is sadly lacking.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Katrina
Date: 2003-10-05 03:58
Wow... I'll have to listen more carefully the next time I play the Elvis Costello while working at B&N...
Cool gig, eh, JJM?
Katrina
Who uses vibrato in folk music but not 100% of the time and not in all ethnicities' musics. It's all in the context...
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Keil
Date: 2003-10-05 04:15
I think the problem with clarinet "vibrato" is that we as clarinetist think of it as such, when in fact it's not a true vibrato but moreso a coloring, shading, used as an expressive device. The problem occurs when people use "vibrato" as a way to mask other tonal discrepancies. You can't liken a clarinet to that of a flute, oboe, bassoon, etc. because of our mechanics. Our overtone series is far more complicated in terms of physics than theirs and our repetoire is far more limited. There was a time when vibrato wasn't in fact used on flute and later came about and even now in the flute world there is still controversy over how much vibrato is too much. I think once a player has reached a certain level of musical integrity, knowledge, experience, and are able to distinguish between "vibrato" as a necessity and "vibrato" as a coloring/shading then they are capable of determining whether or not it is good for them. It's a truly personal choice. To me, it is much more personal than one's reeds or mouthpiece he/she chooses to play. The "coloring" of notes is a tool/technique that allows a player to reach down to the very core of their souls and convey to an audience the most precious of ideas, feelings, sentiments... It's not something to be taken lightly and isn't something that should be automatically dismissed.
Being that I am a great lover and respector of the late Harold Wright who used a very present "tonal shading" aka "vibrato" my ears are atuned to a different kind of sound, one that chooses beauty over virtuosity. Beware of those who mask tonal inferiorities with vibrato, they are the ones who have missed the preverbial boat completely.
Make a personal choice. Sing your song. Come what may... vibrato or no vibrato... make the music yours and don't forget to sign it
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: stickpoet
Date: 2003-10-05 07:39
To clarinet candy,
As for why vibrato is not commonly used with clarinet, I can think of 2 reasons. The first is that it is so difficult to vibrato (yes, I'm using the as a verb too...) with clarinet than with the strings, brasses, oboe, that old raucous basoon, and the nauseatingly diaphragmatic flute. The other reason is those hard-nosed orchestra conductors have been so against the clarinet's blooming musicality.
I practice vibrato a lot and lace any lyrical clarinet melodies with a judicious deal of vibrato. Harold Wright's warm personable vibrato is something that I regulary turn green with envy. The best clarinet vibrato I have ever encountered is the LP recording of Weber's No. 2 by Gervase De Peyer (produced in late 1950's or early 1960's ??), especially during the second movement, which has been an incessant inspiration for me.
Clarinet solo without vibrato is just like a woman's face without any makeup. What is indubitably sexier is a beautiful lady's face with stunningly discreet makeup during a glorious evening.
With fondness, Ryan...
Post Edited (2003-10-05 20:55)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: LeWhite
Date: 2003-10-05 10:33
I've said it before and I say it again. In my [not necessarily valuable] opinion, vibrato is the way forward for the clarinet. It's already complex timbre can be made even more flexible, variable, and expressive.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Synonymous Botch
Date: 2003-10-05 11:35
If the audience applauds, and they pay you to come back, it probably sounds just fine.
I think the only problem with using vibrato is in knowing how much is enuff.
*******
I hear Carmen Macrae, KD Land, Tony Bennett and Lionel Hampton in my head as part of the sound I like to exit my horn.
They don't use vibrato on everything, either.
I suppose the real trick is in knowing where it sounds sweet (my middle range, up to mf) and where it sounds awful (my high E above the staff).
I heard Ricardo Morales in a chamber setting this summer, and he played Mozart - senza vibrato. He followed with a piano duet of Poulenc and there employed a sensitive, delicate shading with (you guessed it) a light vibrato.
Compare this to Acker Bilk, who pours a liberal warble on every note.
Therein lies the difference, and point of arguement.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: BobD
Date: 2003-10-05 12:08
Based on personal experience it is my opinion that the disdain of clarinet vibrato came from early 1900s military band conductors whose influence spread to the early school band movement. It is probably safe to say that vibrato does not work with military marches.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: CPW
Date: 2003-10-05 14:47
Aristotle was a proponent of moderation.
From the above comments perhaps the key thought is that vibrotizing (egads another verb) is ok in its place
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Dee
Date: 2003-10-05 17:42
Also keep in mind that the clarinet has a very pleasing sound without the vibrato. Contrast that to the violin, for example, that sounds rather poor when vibrato is not used.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Liquorice
Date: 2003-10-05 19:54
"Compare this to Acker Bilk, who pours a liberal warble on every note"
Leave Mr. Acker Bilk out of this, that's been done to Death already.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Bob A
Date: 2003-10-05 20:07
But Dee, they are only using FOUR fingers for the vibrato!. Just think what they could do with----
Bob A
Post Edited (2003-10-05 20:08)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Silvite
Date: 2003-10-06 01:08
IMO ppl like pete fountain abuses vibrato in some songs. dont get me wrong hes an awesome clarinetist
---------------------------------------------------------------
MY Jean Baptiste clarinet went on ebay for $150!!
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Rachel
Date: 2003-10-06 01:54
I can make a violin sound really good without vibrato.
I think that vibrato in clarinets should only be used in moderation as an expressive device.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: bp (F)
Date: 2003-10-06 21:00
Marcellus said something close to this :
"I use vibrato in Jazz but I can't imagine to use it in a symphonic orchestra.
the only reason an oboist uses vibrato is because you cannot stand the sound of the instrument without it"
I love Marcellus but things have changed...
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: ned
Date: 2003-10-06 22:47
"Compare this to Acker Bilk, who pours a liberal warble on every note"
He doesn't actually - it's usually just at the end of a phrase. And don't forget - Acker is verboten here.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: stickpoet
Date: 2003-10-06 23:28
The way Bilk plays "Stranger On the Shore" was stupendous and colossal. It was an epoch-making vibrato in the genre of popular songs played by clarinet as a solo instrument. Many people fell in love with his vibrato. I like his sound very much in and of his own right.
You guys don't really have to treat him as if he vibratoed his usual way as the principal clarinetist during the first movement of Tschaikowsky's Pathetique.
With fondness, Ryan...
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: ned
Date: 2003-10-07 03:44
" The way Bilk plays "Stranger On the Shore" was stupendous and colossal. It was an epoch-making vibrato in the genre of popular songs played by clarinet as a solo instrument. Many people fell in love with his vibrato. I like his sound very much in and of his own right. "
Yep - great commercial sound - and what's wrong with that, I'd ask anybody - not that I'm personally enamoured with this particular number?
I think, from the responses to this post so far, that opinion is divided and will continue to be so until the Universe collapses!
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: CPW
Date: 2003-10-07 04:16
......be so until the Universe collapses
But what if it keeps expanding???
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: stickpoet
Date: 2003-10-07 04:27
CPW,
At some point we know not exactly when
It will explode to repeat the galatical hitory again
At which time the cows, those good cows will come home,
Vibratoing their every moo, singing, yeah, delicately singin'
The beginning bars of the second movement of Mozart's 622.
With fondness, Ryan...
Post Edited (2003-10-07 04:35)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: ned
Date: 2003-10-07 06:03
"But what if it keeps expanding???"
Like I said, opinion is divided.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: D Dow
Date: 2003-10-07 15:04
I think the Vibrato thing is not so important when you consider whether or not the artist one listens to is inspiring and musically interesting. The damage that can be done to an otherwise fine player by trying to alter their vibrato is that you throw out the baby with the bath water....so make sure you have a teacher who is sensible and understands the personal nature of vibrato.
As to flutes there is no issue, yet sometimes I really cringe when I hear a flute player trying to force the tone they have by employing a large excessive oscilliatory vibrato. There is no instrument in any orchestra that can match this style of vibrato......however, in many respects people expect this at times from a flute...not a good thing in my opinion.
In France in the 60s Boutard who was a stupendous player used a nanny goat style vibrato that drove many listeners and performers nuts. Yet, he could take it off his tone. His Poulenc recording is great, except the vibrato he uses is so fasts and pitch affecting it drives me nutty!!!
Peterson of the Concertgebouw has a beatiful vibrato and great sound. To me he is an ideal example of the fine marriage of good sound, musicallity and vibrato. he also can go without vibrato to no detriment as well...worth checking out!
David Dow
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: allencole
Date: 2003-10-07 16:01
The use of vibrato on most instruments, including in jazz, has calmed over time--particularly for section work. The larger the section, the more cumbersome vibrato can be.
Personally, I liked the quote by Marcellus, which betrays a number of truths. Just as sliding from note to note was often a substitute for poor technique (a la Ted Lewis), I think that we see a number of devices being used to compensate for notes that aren't that pretty on an instrument.
A little vibrato can bestow some life on a dull-sounding note, while a reedier sound (softer reed) can synthesize greater consistency and reed-friendliness over an instrument's range, and noodling around can help a player avoid a note tha he/she does not want to dwell on for more than a beat or two. The clarinet, IMO, has a minimal number of such notes.
In classical music, the player's freedom is very limited, so vibrato becomes a primary tool in the box.
To me, the main problem with clarinet vibrato is the fact that it needs to be very subtle. You really have to LET it happen when it wants to sneak in. It is difficult to impose a consistent vibrato without sounding ridiculous, and that's why some of us run away screaming at the attempts of Kell, Stoltzman and Mr. Bilk.
Gervase De Peyer makes it work pretty well, but he has an approach that makes the horn seem lightweight and flexible. I think that much of his success with vibrato is rooted in his ability to make the horn sound efforless rather than pensive.
I also believe that this is why jazz players do so well with it. Many are set up for maximum projection with minimum effort, and I think that it allows them to present us with a more relaxed, conversational approach. Just as TV cameras eliminiate much of the need for thick makeup and extreme gestures, the microphone also allows us enjoy nuances that might be difficult to get across unamplifed in a concert hall.
Allen Cole
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Katrina
Date: 2003-10-07 18:25
allencole wrote:
>
> Personally, I liked the quote by Marcellus, which betrays a
> number of truths. Just as sliding from note to note was often a
> substitute for poor technique (a la Ted Lewis), I think that we
> see a number of devices being used to compensate for notes that
> aren't that pretty on an instrument.
For me this poses the question of whether this "poor technique" is not necessarily a "bad" thing. If a performer creates a sound they want whether with "poor" or "good" technique, then that expression is what matters, in my opinion.
YMMV...
Katrina
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: stickpoet
Date: 2003-10-07 23:54
allencole,
The topic of 'vibrato in clarinet' must be a horrendously serious subject! By the way I am on the same wavelength with you, allencole... Effortlessness might be a key to a most orgasmic vibrato.
What do you guys (gals too, for that matter...) think about the magical power of the vibrato of those beautifully singing human voices? Instrumental vibratoes can only mimic or emulate with that of the most miraculous bel canto human voice, ain't it? Why is it that nobody with 3 digit IQ's complain about human voice vibrato, huh? Wa du ya think?
With fondness, Ryan...
Post Edited (2003-10-08 00:01)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: CPW
Date: 2003-10-08 03:31
"Why is it that nobody with 3 digit IQ's complain about human voice vibrato, huh? Wa du ya think?"
Mine's at least 70.5.....hey, that's three digits!!
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: allencole
Date: 2003-10-08 04:37
I agree, Katrina, to a point...
We haven't been necesssarily harmed by players to decided to substitute pitch slides for scale runs. But if you're familiar with Ted Lewis, you'll know that it can be overdone to the point of nausea. There is a reason that he was lampooned so extensively in his day.
Reedier sounds haven't hurt us much, either. In fact, the public seems to prefer them.
But what I was trying to point out in referring to the Marcellus quote is the fact that necessity is the mother of invention, and that many practices that are legitimate today may have started off as responses to difficulty with a particularl instrument.
Allen Cole
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Liquorice
Date: 2003-10-08 06:47
stickpoet wrote: "Why is it that nobody with 3 digit IQ's complain about human voice vibrato, huh?"
Some people do, and it doesn't have anything to do with IQ. Vibrato wasn't always used in singing either. Check out the recent discussion on clarinet vibrato at:
http://test.woodwind.org/clarinet/BBoard/read.html?f=1&i=125062&t=125062
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: ned
Date: 2003-10-08 07:10
" Based on personal experience it is my opinion that the disdain of clarinet vibrato came from early 1900s military band conductors whose influence spread to the early school band movement. It is probably safe to say that vibrato does not work with military marches."
I consulted with one of Australia's leading exponents of New Orleans style jazz trumpet playing during a rehearsal last night. He is "brass band" trained [you know - reads and all that] and he informed me that in that band he was used to hearing [and he demonstrated] the use of vibrato which the lead cornets used all the time - it was used quite frequently - so maybe military bands are different - more along the lines of what a classical conductor would expect to hear perhaps?
Then again there's the Salvos brass bands - I have heard a number of them over the years - and all have been top class. I don't remember hearing much vibrato, if any, in any of their outfits.
Like I said, opinion is divided and will be until the Universe collapses.........................or continues to expand - and why not - it makes for interesting conversation.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Alphie
Date: 2003-10-08 11:16
Since vibrato as we know it today as a constant part of the sound executed on most string instruments and some wind instruments only started as a movement at the Paris conservatory in the late 1890th, I think the earlier use of vibrato as a tool for expression at rare occations was performed on most instruments including clarinet.
Not very much is mentioned about vibrato in tutors for any instrument from the 18th and 19th century, at least not for wind instruments. Quanz is explaining the tecniques of finger vibrato to be exequted on some long notes and a few other occations.
Vibrato was one type of ornament called "tremolo", in the same cathegory as trills, grace notes as well as other types of ornamentation like adding notes in slow movements. Seen in this perspective one can understand why constant vibrato was such a disgrace when it first appeared. Imagine playing trills on every note. It would distroy a lot but it is actually the same thing.
The polarisation with "vibrato instruments" and "non vibrato instruments" came in the 20th century. I believe that clarinet vibrato stayed in France from the very beginning since it was there it started and became an addition to the French school of clarinet playing why I claim that it's correct to use vibrato in French music from the 20th century.
In England, clarinet vibrato was not used before Reginald Kell, who was self taught from the beginning and inspired by his friend oboe player Leon Goossens. Kell had many followers who were inspired by his playing and his vibrato was copied more or less successfully.
Outside these countries clarinet vibrato has never had a real break through. Only a hand full of performers have used it but never enough to get enough followers to make it a tradition. In the east block countries where clarinet vibrato is used i classical interpretation I think originates from a strong folk music tradition like on Balkan and further north from Gypsy tradition like in Hungary and Romania.
The reason for the resistance using vibrato on clarinet in classical music, I believe lies in the fact that a cylindrical bore wind instrument is less flexible in the possibility of bending notes. Add to this that to get a "classical" sound we want to use quite hard reeds, harder than in jazz and folkmusic and this makes it even more difficult to get a nice sounding vibrato and makes it even more "constructed".
Similar reason not to use vibrato on French Horn is the conical mouth piece that has a very narrow center for each note and the risk of splitting notes using vibrato is very appearent.
Alphie
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: hans
Date: 2003-10-08 13:32
Alphie wrote: "Vibrato was one type of ornament called "tremolo", in the same cathegory as trills, grace notes as well as other types of ornamentation like adding notes in slow movements."
I'm sorry to disagree Alphie, but tremolo is a rapid reiteration of a pitch or a rapid alternation between two different pitches. In vibrato the tone does not cease; i.e., it is NOT a type of tremolo.
WRT "The reason for the resistance to using vibrato on clarinet in classical music, I believe lies in the fact that a cylindrical bore wind instrument is less flexible in the possibility of bending notes", I doubt that too. Bending notes is just not a problem on the clarinet.
Hans
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Alphie
Date: 2003-10-08 16:42
Hans,
Vibrato has had many names depending on the exact use of it or how it was produced: tremolo, tremolando, flattermen, shakes, Bebung. Look under "vibrato" in any good music dictionary. Tremolo doesn't mean exactly the same in your school book.
I claim that bending notes is even less of a problem on conical bore double reed instrumens or flute than on a cylindrical bore clarinet for various reasons.
Alphie
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: DAVE
Date: 2003-10-09 03:38
My favorite time to use vibrato is when there are any number of clarinetists present who are irritated by it!
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: stickpoet
Date: 2003-10-09 05:44
During my early 20's, I became a choir member at a catholic church. Not because I was catholic, but because I had a crush on the organ player back then.
I sang a great deal of Gregorian chant. I also used to notice that everybody vibratoed a little bit, especially towards end of each phrase of the chant. Nobody was doing it intentionally. It was just happening. As far as I am concerned, I don't seem to believe that the ancient Gregorian chant guys were singing completely devoid of any vibrato.
Clarinet vibrato is just like premarital sex. It's a big no-no. Almost everybody does it though, in this day and age. Parents and symphony orchestra conductors should not encourage it. But it just happens.
With fondness, Ryan...
Post Edited (2003-10-09 05:48)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Liquorice
Date: 2003-10-09 06:44
"As far as I am concerned, I don't seem to believe that the ancient Gregorian chant guys were singing completely devoid of any vibrato"
Stickpoet, you can believe what you like, but historical evidence shows that vibrato was used only occasionally, even by singers, as an expressive device. And we're not just talking about Gregorian chant here- continuous vibrato only came into use on string instruments during the 19th century.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: stickpoet
Date: 2003-10-09 12:23
Thanks for the history lesson on "continuous" vibrato, Liquorice. I read it here before. I can see you may be continuously determined to teach me history. I am given to enjoy this.
As for me, I believe continuous clarinet vibrato may not be desirable or tastefully possible. Spontaneous vibrato at the end of phrases could be seen as irresistable. Yes, that's what I seem to believe, believe or not.
With fondness, Ryan...
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Liquorice
Date: 2003-10-09 13:34
Stickpoet- you are very welcome for the lesson. I don't have any problem believing that you find spontaneous vibrato at the end of phrases irresistable. What I do find hard to believe is that, even though you had already read my history lesson on vibrato, you still chose to believe that the "ancient Gregorian chant guys" sang with vibrato. Don't forget- the catholic guys in your church choir grew up listening to singers using vibrato. While they may find it irresistable (or perhaps even unavoidable?) to vibrate at the end of phrases, it doesn't mean that it is appropriate to the style!
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: stickpoet
Date: 2003-10-09 22:27
Your point is well accepted, Liquorice. And I do appreciate your special attention to my liberal viewpoint. Trust me, I do.
Now, as for those contemporary catholic guys Gregorian-chanting, about some 30 plus years ago, who used to sing "not completely devoid of" spontaneous vibrato, are you into being appropriate or inappropriate? As opposed to more or less being artistic or inartistic? Is music history, or art? Or, perchance religion? Somewhere in between? Who makes the decision or judgment?
Whichever you might feel it may be, deep down, I seem to acknowledge your enunciation of your own values.
History is history. Values are values. And, beauty is beauty, very cautiously I presume...
With fondness, Ryan...
Post Edited (2003-10-09 22:39)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: D Dow
Date: 2003-10-10 18:14
I think that the topic needs a bit more objective thinking...
example I am sure players like Marcellus could not play with vibrato. I have never heard one note where it is used.
However, dePeyer can certainly turn his vibrato off. I heard him do this on numerous recordings. I really think its a QUESTION of whether or not the artist is able to employ a vibrato that sounds tasteful and this is where subjective thinking ruins the disucssion.
David Dow
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Alphie
Date: 2003-10-11 21:29
Music is a free enterprise.
Nothing can stop anybody to do anything they want. You’re absolutely free to play Bach on a saxophone or to play jazz in the style of a Prussian march. Nothing can stop you from arranging the Brahms Clarinet Quintet for bassoon and brass band or playing staccato where it says legato or fortissimo instead of piano. Nobody will ever punish you for playing quick adagios or slow allegros. People will have opinions but that’s as bad as it gets.
But there are some objective facts about music that you can choose to pay attention to. You can choose to follow the instructions given by the great masters by choosing the right instruments and to play with the right dynamics, articulations and tempi. You can choose to play from a good edition that is clean from editor’s markings. You can choose to study the musical stylistic values of the time when the music was written and find out what universe the people were living in. If you care about these things, it’s your choice. And now to the eternal exception, vibrato:
If you want to do the latter, vibrato is not always a personal choice. Habitual vibrato is very often wrong from a stylistic perspective, practically in all music written before 1900.
Why is it wrong?
-Because the habitual vibrato is not what the great masters or anybody else for that matter of the time were used to or even liked, if you care about that. It’s your choice.
-Because there is so many ways to show expression in music but vibrato has conquered them all. We’re missing out on so much by not paying attention to the whole spectrum of expressions that were lost in 20th century performance practice.
-Because a pure sound with perfect intonation is beautiful and exciting.
Vibrato is a precious spice when used with care and good taste. Too much of it ruins music just as much as too much sugar ruins a nice cup of Columbian coffee. I wish for the day when orchestras stop their habitual shaking and start to play with more heart instead of academic emotions.
But it’s their choice.
Alphie
Post Edited (2003-10-12 16:47)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Bob A
Date: 2003-10-13 00:36
Stickpoet, yoou said in part:
" I don't seem to believe that the ancient Gregorian chant guys were singing completely devoid of any vibrato."
"Clarinet vibrato is just like premarital sex...."
Raised Catholich singing Chants from an early age, lectured by Jesuits and hard-eyed Nuns, just the very thoughts of premarital sex was enough to make me vibrate.
Bob A
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: OboeAtHeart
Date: 2003-10-14 00:01
Folkses in General.
I've been playing for about four years now; my advice may not be the best or the most experianced, but this is a public board, so I'll voice my thoughts.
Since I play the clarinet, bari-sax and the oboe in all three of our bands, I tend to accidently used vibrato on clarinet, since it is required on Oboe, and sometimes used on Bari-Sax.
I've found if I use vibrato on clarinet in my Symph. band, I get yelled at. Makes me wonder sometimes what's the big deal about it. My rival chair holder uses it all the time, and I think it can be appropriate if used in contemporary music. Only. ONLY only. Only. Heh.
In classical music, it's heresy, one should NEVER use vibrato in Mozart or even the Poulenc. It's just not right.
Not that I'm opinionated at all or anything. I think vibrato is wonderful in the old Jazz clarinet stuff (ei. Benny Goodman, Pete Fountain, ect ect.)
So there's my $1.50.
--Jenne.
*~"The clarinet, though appropriate to the expression of the most poetic ideas and sentiments, is really an epic instrument- the voice of heroic love."~*
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: diz
Date: 2003-10-14 01:13
Can this tedious and boring thread be closed now, Mark C, please?
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: stickpoet
Date: 2003-10-14 04:22
One man's meat is another man's poison.
Momentary cynicism all aside, seriously
When I was 12 years old,
My clarinet teacher told me not to vibrato.
I followed his instruction.
But soon, to my puzzlement
I heard him playing the Mozart's concerto
Second movement, with subtle vibrato.
The next week as I was mimicking
His fearsome vibrato,
I was again severely scolded:
He says,
Why the hell are you quivering?
With fondness, Ryan...
Post Edited (2003-10-14 04:27)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: bulldoggy1
Date: 2004-01-16 23:10
Although Reginald Kell did not start with the clarinet until age 15, within one year he was playing professionally. He had started the violin at age 7 but hated it. He picked the clarinet simply because he liked its looks. His father was a professional orchestra director and his older brother (killed in W.W. II) was an accomplished clarinetist. Thus, Reginald was not entirely self-taught. His first formal teacher was George Davis.
Let's face it. Most of us clarinetists would give our figurative eye-teeth to play and sound half as well as Reginald Kell.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Liquorice
Date: 2004-01-17 22:00
Alphie wrote: "The polarisation with "vibrato instruments" and "non vibrato instruments" came in the 20th century."
I think this really sums it up. But most people seem to draw the wrong conclusion from this. Often one hears the argument that because all other orchestral instruments play with vibrato (with frequent exception of the French horn), the clarinet should also play with vibrato. It's actually the other way around- in much of the orchestral repertoire the other instruments are using far too much vibrato!
Today we started rehearsals for Beethoven's opera 'Fidelio' with Nikolaus Harnoncourt- commonly regarded as one of the world's leading authorities in this music. There are times during the opera where he feels that certain types of vibrato are appropriate. But he said that all instruments (including clarinets and horns) should use vibrato during these moments. There are lots of other places, however, where vibrato is not to be used.
Vibrato is an expressive device. I agree with Alphie that "too much of it ruins music". It's not a question of appropriate versus artistic. Neither is it a question of intellectual versus emotional. Harnoncourt's decisions are always based on artistic as well as historical considerations. When both the intellectual and emotional aspects come into play, everything falls into place, and the music becomes even more powerful.
P.S. diz- if you find this thread "tedious and boring " ... don't read it!
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Wes
Date: 2004-01-19 04:40
Vibrato on the clarinet can be produced by air pressure variation or by jaw movements. The results are different and I would expect that jazz players tend to use the jaw movements, like sax players often do, while some of the classical players may use the air pressure vibrato, as do the oboe, flute and most bassoon players. One can learn them both. No serious oboe or flute player would use a jaw vibrato.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: stickpoet
Date: 2004-01-19 05:07
Wow!
Some of us are interested in the method of vibrato-madness.
And some of us are still interested in vibrato-bashing.
Ha!
Some of us opine that excessiveness is no good.
And some of us know that any excess of anything
is, needless to say, just not good: As if we didn't know.
By and large, we say that with some tasteful arrogance,
like a sincerely bureaucratic community orchestra clarinetist.
Hey!
In the meantime, happy vibratoing, guys and gals.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: graham
Date: 2004-01-19 08:38
I take the same view as Alphie and Licquorice on this, but I wonder how modern instruments might sound without vibrato. Metal stringed violins might sound very sterile without it whereas gut stringed instruments sounded great. And of course there is always the pressure on intonation accuracy where a large group are playing the same note sans vibrato. Oboes are much changed since 1900, with smaller reeds and a more piercing tone than then. How would they sound without vibrato, now? Flutes have a brighter sound than the largely wooden instruments of 1900. Actually, I can think of few things more beautiful than a flute sound without vibrato, and heavy vibrato relentlessly applied in a flute turns me off completely, yet these are the instruments where vibrato is often regarded as the most obvious requirement. If our concert halls were smaller, our orchestras were not so loud so as to fill big halls, and we put up with any technical deficiencies, such as poor intonation, that may be inherent in some c. 1900 instruments, then I think we could happily return to an orchestral style where vibrato was only used to accentuate high emotional points. That would be welcome to me.
This was tried in UK, when the "New Queens Hall Orchestra" was formed to play c. 1900 instruments in the correct style. It never really got off the ground.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: D Dow
Date: 2004-01-20 12:33
One aspect of this discussion that arises is :
The bassoon uses vibrato
The flute uses vibrato
The oboe uses vibrato
and of course whether the clarinet is the lone man out...
as to flute I find Galway one of my least favorite players, Rampal and Michel deBot both play with little vibrato and occassionally none. In Paris in 86 I heard the Ravel Daphnis solo on flute with Msr. deBost using no vibrato and was amazed!!
As to strings vibrato helps define pitch and intensity of the sound. A common arguement is thay what type of vibrato are we using. A jaw vibrato is really hard on pitch in my opinion...I tend to use a diaphramic vibrato and carefully. 90 percent of the time in orchestra I use no vibrato....
There are also players out there so obcessed with using a straight tone it is forgotten that the pioint of this discussion is how to enliven and invigorate a phrase of music....
David Dow
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: BobD
Date: 2004-01-20 13:33
using vibrato is like using salt on food. Sometimes it helps liven up things, sometimes it's not needed. But too much is bad for your health.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: paulwl
Date: 2004-01-20 19:48
To me using vibrato is more like "reaching" at the table. Some places, it doesn't matter; some places, don't dare.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: clarinetmama
Date: 2004-01-22 00:53
My dad who began playing the clarinet in 1942 and stopped playing for a living in 1955 always plays with vibrato when he picks up my clarinet. My generation (I am 27 years younger than my dad) uses it sparingly. Dad on the other hand uses it all the time. Of course he was influenced by the big band guys...my influence as a kid was, well, aside from my dad I couldn't have named a clarinet player.
I have asked clarinet students at the university where I got my MA who their clarinet influences are and they can't name anyone either. WHat are we doing wrong.
If this is an indication...I played a klezmer influenced piece for a girls choir and had one of the moms say to me, "I had no idea the clarinet could be so much fun." Could it be that the clarinet has a reputation as being dull and stuffy? I guess that is another topic for this board.
Jean
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: paulwl
Date: 2004-01-22 01:23
(clarinetmama) >> If this is an indication...I played a klezmer influenced piece for a girls choir and had one of the moms say to me, "I had no idea the clarinet could be so much fun." Could it be that the clarinet has a reputation as being dull and stuffy? <<
You said it, I didn't. <:-/
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: BobD
Date: 2004-01-22 14:02
To a large extent orchestral clarinet is rather "staid", shall we say. Twas not always that way. For example RagTime, Klezmer, Dixieland,Jass clarinet are all fun sounding and playing. Pete Fountain is fun clarinet and Acker Bilk is .....well, romantic anyway. The tide is turning a bit however, as some of the more recent compositions contain fun clarinet parts. The clarinet is just not loud enough and clarinet makers have not followed the route started by Fender and Les Ford.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Keil
Date: 2004-01-22 20:26
Is it fair to say then that vibrato was more commonly used up until the 19th century when more staunch classical clarinetist wanted to disassociate themselves with clarinet jazzers who too used vibrato?
I was having a discussion with a close friend of mine who whole-heartedly believes in vibrato and i myself found quotes stating that Muhlfeld and Stadler both were apt to using vibrato, these two being Brahms' and Mozart's inspiration respectively. Do you think that do to prejudices occuring at the beginning of the 19th century with the advent of jazz music that it then became unfashionable to use vibrato as to dissimiliate oneself with "those clarinetist" of the jazz, seemingly inferior at the time, musical form/variety?
I think that with such prejudices against vibrato in and of itself we as clarinetist tend to pass on these personal prejudices onto our students who pass them on to others and so forth, this was in fact the argument my friend presented me and i see no fallacies in that thought process. Vibrato is notoriously a hot and sordid topic
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Keil
Date: 2004-01-23 02:13
Correction, i'm currently looking for concrete quotes stating stadler used vibrato, i have been able to find the quote by Jack Brymer regarding Muhlfeld's use of a "big vibrato"
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: BobD
Date: 2004-01-23 13:07
Let's see now.....the 19th century started when? I'm thinking it was 1800 or 1801....but I'm not positive. Vibrato, in my opinion, is closely tied to note bending which is a technique more appropriate with "non-classical" music (not just the Classic Period). Most symphonic clarinet music (if not all 19th century!) doesn't recognize bending the clarinet notes. What do you think?
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: ned
Date: 2004-01-27 01:49
""Most symphonic clarinet music (if not all 19th century!) doesn't recognize bending the clarinet notes. What do you think?""
I can't really respond to the question other than to ask if you feel that this music period of ""recognises the bending of notes"" by strings - and if it does, why is it so? If it is a legitimate practice for some sections of an orchestra, why not for all sections?
I'm not sure either, if ""bending"" of notes is an expression one should use to describe vibrato, it appears that you may have some objection to the practice.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Alphie
Date: 2004-01-27 08:06
John K, vibrato as we know it today was not a general practice on any instrument before the time of the turn of the century 1800-1900. It started as an avantgarde movement in Paris in the 1890th and develloped over the years in the beginning of the 20th C. This goes only for European "classical" music and has nothing to do with jazz tradition that is a completely different matter with its own background.
Why clarinet and french horn didn't pick up the new trend until much later I haven't found a good answer to. I've suggested before that a classical style vibrato doesn't lye very well on these instruments since there seems to be a certain resistance in the cylindrical bore of the clarinet that isn't very "bending-friendly" as on conical instruments. The french horn had at the time a strictly conical mouthpiece that didn't allow much bending without splitting notes. Modern FH MPs have a tendency of a "cup", closer to a trumpet MP and is more secure. Some sound qualities are lost however. Techniques have been develloped during the 20th C to produce vibrato on clarinet but they are IMO very artificial and not as natural as on double reed instruments and flute. This doesn't stop me from using it occationally.
In "classical" European music vibrato is strictly a matter of style and in general it should not be used on any instrument more than as an occational colouring as a result of a good education and a develloped sence of style.
John K, if you are in Melbourne, take the opportunity to listen to the MSO under their chief conductor Markus Stenz who I had the pleasure working with last week. His classical style is exactly what I'm talking about.
Alphie
Post Edited (2004-01-27 08:23)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: D Dow
Date: 2004-01-27 17:08
I am not quite sure as to what this conversation is about...
however...
portamento is a common techniquqe
that is employed in the orchestra sometimes
-
that is a remnant of of the past...I also know that vibrato on the flute is not
as prominent in France as say on the Clarinet...
historical speaking is
trying to conjecture whether or not vibrato has ever been used
is a total flight of fancy...
we will never know if Bach had his ensembles use vibrato or whether or not the original player of a Teleman concerto used IT
as to the above quote:
"vibrato is strictly a matter of style and in general it should not be used on any instrument more than as an occational colouring as a result of a good "
this does not make any sense...the majority of strings...flutes and winds and trumpets employ vibrato....
vibrato...
portamento and such things are implied in numerous score...even Mahler....I think that as an orchestral player over 15 years I can honestly say most players use vibrato...only clarinets and low brass seem to be the only people who tend not to use vibrato...on strings it is valuable to bringing the note to pitch....
David Dow
Post Edited (2004-01-27 17:10)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: BobD
Date: 2004-01-27 17:09
John K...I have no objection to vibrato ....when it's appropriate. What is appropriate is a matter of taste,however. I would say that vibrato would fall within the definition of bending but not define it.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: D Dow
Date: 2004-01-27 17:14
There are numerous types of vibrato
Slow oscilliatory vibrato....
Pitch vibrato
jaw vibrato]
Diaphramic vibrato
throat vibrato
a slight waver in the sound but without using vibrato..
amplitude vibrato
fast vibrato
medium vibrato
etc....
I am sure we will never know if Joachim or Pagininni used vibrato...but on strings it certainly helps....
David Dow
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Alphie
Date: 2004-01-27 19:16
D Dow
In my latest post I tried to give an answer to the title of this thread, just as a reminder if you had forgotten what we're talking about.
I tried to give the historical perspective to the question since it's impossible to answer if you don't have the whole picture.
You're mainstream enough to know and explain how an orchestra sounds like today. Thank you very much, we're all taking notes. But to give justice to the music written before 1900 we have to reconsider the way of phrasing, our ways of using attacs, dynamics AND vibrato among other things from what's common today to favour the various styles that the music belong to. This is a mission that is spread rapidly across Europe and other parts of the world including Simon Rattle with the Berlin Philharmonic. Already Claudio Abbado imposed this approach to the joy of the members who all feel the fresh breeze. I'm lucky enough to be a member of another orchestra who welcome this sound that I'm sure is going to be the future of symphony orchestras in the 21st century.
I think you're Canadian. Did you ever listen to the Toronto Symphony under Jukka-Pekka Saraste? He was one of the early birds in this field even if he has develloped these ideas even more since then. We usually have comprehensive conversations about these issues and he's 100% on.
Alphie
To Liquorice: Amen soulmate.
Post Edited (2004-01-27 19:47)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: D Dow
Date: 2004-01-27 19:54
I worked with Saraste and got to know him well...he does not care for many period performance techniques...especially changing of rythmns...as to trills and such he is pretty mainstream....
As to doing Brahms as in the day of Brahms conductors like Karajan and Boehm reacted against the stodgy slow heavy quality of the older Germanic conducting tradition...they rallied around the call of Toscannini, a more fluid approach to Brahms and Beethoven..for example many conductors used to do the opening of the fifth out of tempi...more like thjree quarters and a long dreadful pause....
As to style, and this is where the heart is..I think I really prefer groups that are modern...the tuning issues for me with original period instruments drive me bonkers...
As to vibrato..no one knows how Tartini played a phrase..no one.
As to whether or not it was beautiful is even more a matter of conjecture...
I have just finished working on the Molter Concertos and do trill above downward...in the next concert I am adding my own embellishments...
I leave 3 key clarinet playing to those who own one...I have enough trouble with the one I now own...
David Dow
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Jimmy
Date: 2004-01-27 20:23
I do not use vibrato in any music except jazz and klezmer, and there only sparingly, for the effect.
I think that one of ther greatest parts of the clarinet sound is its smoothness, which, in my opinion is lost with the use of vibrato.
It is also something that has been an orcestral mark that seperates the clarinet from all other woodwind instruments in the orcestra.
Jimmy
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: music_is_life
Date: 2005-02-23 18:18
I like vibrato, personally. However, we were playing "O Magnum Mysterium" (yes, choaral piece made band...what'll they think of next!) and we decided to put one clarinet on the first part, and I liked the 2nd part better. The person who played first used vibrato and I thought it sounded horrible! Now, perhaps he needs to develop his vibrato-skills, and/or maybe that piece just was NOT a vibrato piece.
I use vibrato in Weber and Brahams- in Weber's Comcertino, at that slow and really low part; and my clar. teacher reprimanded me for using vibrato, even though I thought it gave it more character, since otherwise it seemed flat (not in tone, but "square" I guess). And when playing vibrato on the Weber Concerto in f minor (the slow part and longer notes), a judge (clarinet-player), who is known for his disdain for vibrato (stupid me!) thought I was nervous and thus producing a vibrato sound. perhaps that was part of it...
but then again, I have used vibrato in other auditions and got perfect scores on tonality and no negative (or positive) comments on the vibrato.
I think that the use of vibrato is solely opinion. What particular people like. It's all based on taste. But I guess one should consider the time-frame in which the piece was composed, in order to honour the history of the piece.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: music_is_life
Date: 2005-02-23 18:30
p.s. I studied with a director who stopped and went around the band asking how each instrument employed vibrato (arg- I mean, how they made it happen), and when he got to the clarinets, it was silent, until on of the seconds shouted that clarinets don't use vibrato. hmmm..
anyway- it's the diaphram that you use, correct? sometimes I find that using my jaw works better, but that seems to suffice for jazz, not classical. I think classical, for the most part is more intricate and cares more for tone, and therefore using the jaw kills the tone, but in jazz, it seems not to matter. NOT to say that tone doesn't matter in jazz- I'm just saying that I don't notice that the jaw-vibrato is as revolting in jazz than in classical. but then again, what do I know?
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: stickpoet
Date: 2005-02-24 01:23
I completely forgot about what I opined long time ago on this one. Topic-wise on clarinet, it a lulu issue.
When I was checking my e-mail today, I noticed some suspicious-looking e-mailer's name (music_is_life) in the middle of all sorts of junk mail I regularly receive these days. Wow! Dass right. You guys still talking about that darn sensitive subject, huh?
I wanna say this with some degree of humility as well as wisdom. Clarinet vibrating? O, yeah. It's jes' like ladies' make up. It should be there, unless she subscribes to the outdoorsy image of the Ivory girls. (No makeup at all, yuk!)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
The Clarinet Pages
|
 |
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
