Why does vibrato sound good to our ears? After all, its just a slight waver in the tone, right? Why is it necessary (for instruments that can produce it) to make beautiful music?
Anyone have any ideas/theories?
thanks
Why does vibrato sound good to our ears? After all, its just a slight waver in the tone, right? Why is it necessary (for instruments that can produce it) to make beautiful music?
Anyone have any ideas/theories?
thanks
I wouldn't say that it IS necessary. There is beautiful sax playing that features little or no vibrato (Coltrane comes to mind, and Parker -- both of course could play vibrato wonderfully, but often eschewed it).
Nevertheless, the question "why do we do often find vibrato beautiful" is an interesting one, to which I have no better answer than the ones offered here. I only add the observation that there is more than one kind of "beauty." (Problematic term, "beauty." In profoudly interesting ways.)
Why does vibrato sound good to our ears? After all, its just a slight waver in the tone, right? Why is it necessary (for instruments that can produce it) to make beautiful music?
Anyone have any ideas/theories?
thanks
I like vibrato. It makes pieces with lots of sustained notes have more character and prevents them from becoming long and tedious. The emotion it adds is a great bonus. Perhaps no vibrato seems inappropriate because it could be conceived as simple, like a young student playing long notes in a piece that just drags on and on. But then there are instances when no vibrato works wonderfully, so who really knows...
Like said above, it gives the sax a more human and earthy sound. And the intonation piece is a big one. Vibrato can effectively cover many a sour note. By making the played pitch move up and down past the "correct" pitch, the listener's brain will often automatically hears the correct pitch within the vibrato.
Another less positive use of vibrato is hamming it up while playing in a group. If you put just a little vibrato on the end of your sustained notes, you will stand out over the other players within the same cord. To me, that's bad and sounds terrible if you're playing with other horns on a straight-sounding piece of music. But it's ok and sounds pretty good if you are playing with guitar, piano and maybe even one another wind instrument like a flute or trumpet where the sax is supposed to sound unique.
This must be right, I think. Our "base line" in terms of listening is the human voice (??). When we hear a singer we associate vibrato with emotional intensity. By analogy, we enjoy the effect on instuments that can produce it. Nevertheless, it is interesting that many listeners feel it is possible for vibrato to be overdone, at which point it starts to suggest fake emotion or "hamming it up". I find it interesting too that the listener's response to vibrato is affected by fashions in music - I doubt even a very great artist could get away with playing with as broad a saxophone vibrato as Sidney Bechet in today's musical climate. By "get away" I mean that the player would be steered away from this kind of sound early in his career.
It's better when the vibrato average pitch is the correct pitch. If you play a more relaxed embouchure without vibrato (ie push the mouthpiececon a little more than lip down), the vibrato will be better in tune.
In my opinion, no vibrato doesn't sound inappropriate, per se. (Wow, that's a weird sentence: a triple negative!) For me, a better question would be: WHEN does no vibrato sound inappropriate, and WHY. Likewise, when does vibrato sound inappropriate?
If you guys are talking about the vibrato that is done with altered speed for effect here and there, I was told once that it's an American invention. Previously, people used to use the "goat like" continuous vibrato for just about every kind of music. The non-continuous effect-style vibrato is just that, an effect, like false fingerings or slap tonguing or something, and likewise, not using it is an effect. For flavor. And the way it's done is often different from player to player, so it's very individual. All that adds depth to whatever you're doing, but particularly in an improvisational context.
It's better when the vibrato average pitch is the correct pitch. If you play a more relaxed embouchure without vibrato (ie push the mouthpiececon a little more than lip down), the vibrato will be better in tune.
If you guys are talking about the vibrato that is done with altered speed for effect here and there, I was told once that it's an American invention. Previously, people used to use the "goat like" continuous vibrato for just about every kind of music.
Let me doubt that very seriously. If you talk about hyperromantism and barok in classical music, then "nannie goat" comes to mind. But there is more to music than that. I dare even say that it is highly improbable that in more than let's say 3000 years of musical history, nobody ever came up with a moderate vibrato here and there.
I think a lot of people here are on the right track. My personal take on the matter is that for fundamental and instinctive reasons, the human voice is the yardstick by which all other attempts at lyricism are measured, and so it is the goal of every other instrument, to certain extent, to imitate the innate singing quality of the human voice. To this end, though, I would contend that neither the inclusion nor the omission of vibrato is definitively right or wrong, especially considering that many vocalists use it selectively and some, not at all. Instead, it is my belief that vibrato is a matter of stylistic taste, musical sense, and personal preference. For instance, I will alter my vibrato or just not use it depending on the mood of the song, what emotion I'm trying to convey, and how I'm feeling at the moment. The whole thing is entirely subjective - except in some styles, where certain rules regarding style have been established - and that's part of what makes music so expressive and individualistic.
I think a lot of people here are on the right track. My personal take on the matter is that for fundamental and instinctive reasons, the human voice is the yardstick by which all other attempts at lyricism are measured, and so it is the goal of every other instrument, to certain extent, to imitate the innate singing quality of the human voice. To this end, though, I would contend that neither the inclusion nor the omission of vibrato is definitively right or wrong, especially considering that many vocalists use it selectively and some, not at all. Instead, it is my belief that vibrato is a matter of stylistic taste, musical sense, and personal preference. For instance, I will alter my vibrato or just not use it depending on the mood of the song, what emotion I'm trying to convey, and how I'm feeling at the moment. The whole thing is entirely subjective - except in some styles, where certain rules regarding style have been established - and that's part of what makes music so expressive and individualistic.
Context is all. No technique is "beautiful" (or "ugly") in and of itself. Multiphonics is (are?) a good case in point: to some folks, multiphonics are inherently ugly, but used in the right way in the right place in the right music, the effect can be astonishing, and densely emotive.
I was told to vibrate from the pitch up by a well known (and I mean well known) saxophone teacher who is known for both jazz and classical, but mostly jazz. However, my main instructor just always told me to listen and emulate, and Rousseau (who has the best vibrato IMO) goes up (I think).
But hey, whatever works...
Anybody up for some Sydney Bechett vibrato:twisted:? There was this clarinet player at my school who absolutely hated vibrato, so my friend gave him a Bechett CD:twisted:
I was told to vibrate from the pitch up by a well known (and I mean well known) saxophone teacher who is known for both jazz and classical, but mostly jazz. However, my main instructor just always told me to listen and emulate, and Rousseau (who has the best vibrato IMO) goes up (I think).
But hey, whatever works...
Anybody up for some Sydney Bechett vibrato:twisted:? There was this clarinet player at my school who absolutely hated vibrato, so my friend gave him a Bechett CD:twisted:
Sorry.
I have it from the horse's mouth. Dr. Rousseau, Shell Lake Wisconsin Summer Workshop 1980. Also, my teachers John Sampen, and Yoshi Maezawa. --Not to mention numerous master classes with various string players.
I was told to vibrate from the pitch up by a well known (and I mean well known) saxophone teacher who is known for both jazz and classical, but mostly jazz. However, my main instructor just always told me to listen and emulate, and Rousseau (who has the best vibrato IMO) goes up (I think).
But hey, whatever works...
Anybody up for some Sydney Bechett vibrato:twisted:? There was this clarinet player at my school who absolutely hated vibrato, so my friend gave him a Bechett CD:twisted:
Sorry.
I have it from the horse's mouth. Dr. Rousseau, Shell Lake Wisconsin Summer Workshop 1980. Also, my teachers John Sampen, and Yoshi Maezawa. --Not to mention numerous master classes with various string players.
Funny, the guy who told me was a Rousseau student. But anyway, I guess Rousseau trumps all...
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Related Threads
?
?
?
?
?
Sax on the Web Forum
3.3M posts
75.5K members
Since 2003
A forum community dedicated to saxophone players and enthusiasts originally founded by Harri Rautiainen. Come join the discussion about collections, care, displays, models, styles, reviews, accessories, classifieds, and more!