 The Clarinet BBoard
|
Author: locke9342
Date: 2016-05-05 06:00
I know vibrato is generally frowned upon, I'm seeing examples of vibrato being used in recent recordings. More specifically in the copeland concerto both recordings of stanley drucker and benny goodman are using vibrato. Is vibrato the way to go in this piece?
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: TomS
Date: 2016-05-05 06:10
Great players like Reginald Kell, Richard Stoltzman and Harold Wright used vibrato on all types of music. Kell was more pronounced than the others, Stoltzman and Wright used vibrato more sparingly. All three were/are "double-lip" players.
Tom
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: sfalexi
Date: 2016-05-05 06:18
Judging by copland concerto being made for Benny G, and I believe premiered by him, vibrato certainly seems acceptable as that was his traditional way to play.
I've met many people who say, "Clarinet should NOT ever use vibrato". I disagree. I think it depends on the piece, and how it's used. I haven't listened to as many clarinet performances as I should have, but I love Stoltzman/yo yo ma/emmanual ax mozart trio, and I LOVE his use of vibrato in that piece.
Alexi
US Army Japan Band
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: gwie
Date: 2016-05-05 07:41
I think it's an expressive tool, and should be used where it may be appropriate in the repertoire.
As a violin/viola player, I've always found the anti-vibrato sentiment rather bizarre. Especially when playing chamber music with strings...getting my students to explore the possibility of vibrato usually takes place when we study the Mozart, Brahms, and Weber quintets, and I'm usually playing one of the string parts.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: WhitePlainsDave
Date: 2016-05-05 08:31
I'm curious to know the origins and rationale for the anti vibrato school in most of the classical clarinet repertoire if anyone knows.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Wes
Date: 2016-05-05 10:08
I recall how shocked I was on first hearing Kell play the Mozart Clarinet Concerto with vibrato and rubato after my serious study of it with a serious teacher. I still prefer the non vibrato way of playing it although I use vibrato on other instruments as needed.
Vibrato is not generally frowned upon and I don't think there is an anti vibrato school. It all depends on the music being played and the musical judgement of the performer.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Paul Aviles
Date: 2016-05-05 11:55
And lets not forget that there are two main approaches to vibrato as well.
The easiest (and I dare say today) more common is the lip vibrato, where you alternate squeezing and releasing. Of course this purely a "pitch" vibrato and may lend itself to more criticism from the "anti-vibrato" camp.
Then there is the "diaphragmatic" vibrato which is achieved by alternating the intensity of the air column using your abdominal muscles (OR by using your voice box.......also a legit way to do this). That vibrato only affect amplitude and NOT pitch.
And for what it's worth Stanley Drucker will say flat out that he never used vibrato. I for one have come to believe that the sound that appears to be vibrato in some of his recordings (and notable examples of others) has to do with HOW Drucker generates his core sound.
.................Paul Aviles
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Alexis
Date: 2016-05-05 14:24
Sure, but maybe not on every note.
I'm yet to be convinced by diaphragmatic vibrato - I feel like it's just as destablising as using your lip. Also, string vibrato is pitch variation not amplitude variation as far as I know
I think I do a combo of lip and internal resonance (different vowel sounds) for when I use vibrato
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: fskelley
Date: 2016-05-05 20:54
Technically, vibrato is pitch variation and TREMOLO is amplitude variation. But those terms have been mashed around since at least the 1950's, by organ manufacturers in particular.
The Leslie speaker as a case in point, is mainly tremolo achieved with a rotating baffle & stationary speaker- as is the competing Wurlitzer "Spectra-tone" system utilizing a speaker on a rotating wheel plus some synchronized electronic processing. Both systems also produce a bit of pitch variation by Doppler effects.
But organ mfgs also deliberately or ignorantly mislabeled electronic vibratos and tremolos. My favorite Thomas kept it pretty much correct.
Stan in Orlando
EWI 4000S with modifications
Post Edited (2016-05-05 20:55)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: maxopf
Date: 2016-05-05 21:44
I had the opportunity to hear David Shifrin on Sunday, playing the Beethoven Trio and the Dohnányi Sextet. He uses a little bit of vibrato, and he sounds amazing. I think it really worked in the context of chamber music with strings.
Then again, I heard the NY Phil yesterday (suddenly so many fantastic musicians visiting San Diego!) and Anthony McGill, Mark Nuccio, and Pascual Martinez-Forteza all sounded amazing without vibrato. So I guess it really depends on the player and the context.
Post Edited (2016-05-05 21:59)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: MichaelW
Date: 2016-05-05 22:14
On string instruments, vibrato, as I recall from my violin lessons as a youth, is taught as pitch variation. The same on oboe: Alfred Sous, Neue Oboenschule, Edition Peters (free translation): „Vibrato means voluntary, regular pitch variations as opposed to tremolo... the tone is -shortly and fast- sharpened a bit ...“. I omit the explication Sous gives for this technique, for it is obviously wrong: he writes about „Hochziehen“ (pulling upward) of the diaphragm, which from anatomical reasons is not possible: the diaphragm can only be „pulled down“ - contracted- in inspiration, or it may counteract the expiratory pressure from the abdominal muscles in a controlled way as diaphragmal support, „Atemstütze“- and here also diaphragmal vibrato can be effected. So in my (amateurish) experience once trying to learn vibrato on the oboe was useful to get a feeling for diaphragmal support. Lip vibrato, btw., wasn't looked at as correct on the oboe.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Paul Aviles
Date: 2016-05-05 22:45
I agree with "MichaelW," it is my understanding that with the oboe reeds being so close to one another, the only executable vibrato is "diaphragmatic."
And Stan, I think you may be confusing the "audio engineering" definition of tremolo with what woodwind players do. I just finished a semester of MIDI and I had to (with great pains) avoid speaking in the terms you used. As far as I know for us, tremolo is just another term for trill.
.............Paul Aviles
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Hank Lehrer
Date: 2016-05-06 01:51
Not too long ago I played a show (can't remember which) that had some very nice bass clarinet parts backing the female vocals on a couple of tunes. A flat, traditional bass clarinet tone was not right so I "warmed" things up with a little vibrato. It was very nice.
HRL
PS I'm a sax player so it was a lip vibrato.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: fskelley
Date: 2016-05-06 02:10
Paul- to confuse the issue further, all these items are termed "tremulants".
http://www.chipple.net/dx7/english/edit.mode.html --- I cut my synth and MIDI teeth on the DX7. The instructions here pretty clearly use vibrato and tremolo as I've defined them, though they do weasel word a bit. Pitch Modulation Depth is said to create vibrato, while Amplitude Modulation Depth creates tremolo.
Every Sunday I'm playing on a Yamaha HX-1 organ (also from the 80's) that has a very good Leslie imitation done digitally- complete with speedup and slowdown when you switch between "tremolo" and "celeste" (slow rotation), and adjustable tremolo speed (good because too fast sounds like The Edge of Night, and too slow can crosstalk with song rhythm). And it's all amplitude modulation though possibly a tiny bit of PM is mixed in.
Also I have experience on 70's Rhodes electric pianos with onboard amplification- they had a unique "tremolo" that was adjustable depth and speed and was front to back rather than left to right, very odd to mike for stereo but gloriously awesome live. Of course it was 100% amplitude modulation.
For me personally, it all goes back to an "All About Organs" book I purchased at Radio Shack circa 1967 and might still have if it hasn't disintegrated- where the author harped on this topic and fussed at organ mfg who labeled things "wrong".
But no matter how precisely language is defined, misuse will destroy and change meaning over time. Before long, your and you're will mean the same thing, or you're will be completely gone. SMH.
Stan in Orlando
EWI 4000S with modifications
Post Edited (2016-05-06 04:59)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: seabreeze
Date: 2016-05-06 05:32
The American Heritage Dictionary, Fourth Edition records the evolving meaning of the word "tremelo":
1a. A tremulous effect produced by rapid repetition of a single tone.
1b. A smiliar effect produced by the rapid alternation of two tones.
2. A device on an organ for producing a tremulous effect.
3. A vibrato in singing, often excessive or poorly controlled.
So it would seem that when used to indicate vibrato, the connotation of tremelo is not favorable. The first two meanings are the ones most classical musicians use.
The word "trill" in the same dictionary can mean "a tremulous sound made by certain birds," or "the rapid alternation of two tones, either a whole or a half tone apart," or "a vibrato." Many musicians do use "trill" for rapid alternation of tones close together and reserve "tremelo" for the rapid alternation between any two notes, including those more widely spaced.
Internet seems to be working to kill the profession of lexicographer, but there may still be some value in consulting those specialists for reliable info on word history and evolving distinctions between words.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Paul Aviles
Date: 2016-05-06 06:29
Yeah, the tremolo really only exists in the string world, but we suffer from transcriptions. If you double tongue quickly, you can affectively imitate a tremolo to a fair degree.
OH MAN...........The DX7 !!!! I just cut my teeth on that. Not ideal for someone who has basically NEVER seen an electronic instrument up close before.
I do want to brag that I just bought my first MIDI controller though. An Alesis V49 for just over 100 bucks (fewer buttons than the DX7....easier to understand).
The only thing I'll ever do with it is throw a counter melody or auxiliary percussion into ProTools.
..............Paul Aviles
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: fskelley
Date: 2016-05-06 06:45
I conclude that the terms mean different things in different musical contexts, happens in a lot of fields. Problems arise only when someone crosses from one sub-field into another where the different meanings might confuse or even cause error- say an engineer becoming a physician or an organist/synthesist becoming a clarinetist or violinist.
Now I think I finally understand why synth voices called "tremolo strings" do not sound like what I expected. Had been a mystery to me for 30 years.
Back to the original topic of this thread- I will accept that "vibrato" on a clarinet may be any combination of pitch and amplitude variation (in physical systems it is almost impossible to completely separate them anyway), though I would expect PM to be dominant most of the time.
Stan in Orlando
EWI 4000S with modifications
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
The Clarinet Pages
|
 |
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
