# Should vibrato happen on every note (where possible)?



## ComposerOfAvantGarde (Dec 2, 2011)

From my understanding, vibrato is an ornament. Varying levels of speed, width of the range and direction the pitch changes etc. are all used to colour a note or pout more emphasis on it. I believe the practice of using vibrato as much as possible came about in the early days of recording so orchestras could produce a louder sound for the microphone to pick up. I have gathered that one view is to say that vibrato should be used as an ornament nowadays (which would create a much wider range of ways to play a note) but also there may be some with the opinion that vibrato as much as possible has become just part of the standard modern technique for whichever instruments are usually played with vibrato. What do you think?


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

Other than none at all (another distinct sound) My preference is for as little as possible, while there is, as truly exists with the human voice, a 'natural vibrato,' and I think strings can have an approximation of something similar to a 'natural vibrato.' That is not much, and I prefer it used extremely sparingly.

You are correct about early recordings, especially with vocalists and string soloists, as well as the full string sections. The early equipment picked up well on Caruso, because of a very bright 'ping' in the voice plus the vibrato, where other of his contemporaries did not, literally, 'cut it' in the recording studios. There is no need for that with the contemporary engineering we now have.

Without my having perfect pitch or, I think, being overly fussy, it does not take much when the first violinist plays a solo with the rest of the string section supporting it and the soloist uses a bit of extra vibrato (this helps that solo stand out from the body of strings sound) before I start hearing the oscillation as sharp, and therefore more than a little unpleasant or irritating. It is only a question of a little bit too much before the listener begins to think, _*"Exactly which part of that oscillation am I supposed to take as the pitch you want me to hear?" *_

Part of the classic "Hollywood Sound" involved the first violinist coming in after the entire track was recorded, and then playing the sectional first violin part as written but with a great deal more vibrato (schmaltz  This was recorded and then mixed in with the recorded general orchestra take: the industry term for that is, _"Sweetening the line."_ (One reason I tend to cringe a bit when I hear it in many a film score is that I find it "syrupy." Wherever I hear anything near to it, it seems to denote -- for lack of a better phrase -- _cheap sentiment_. 
[The EastWest Quantum orchestral string samples are also tipped in the direction of that sweetened Hollywood style... I don't know if the user can go in there and tweak the envelopes to reduce or remove that quality.]

Similarly, the full string section with enough vibrato will sound fuller in a way because of that pitch distortion, but again, for me, a very little goes a very far way. Currently, there is some ado about a near drastic reduction of vibrato in symphony string sections, especially in what became a common delivery in the mid to late romantic repertoire as performed. I ardently welcome it.

I think it is far less 'called for' in most scores from any period than has been done in the past, and I'm happy that orchestras and soloists are using it less, or at least far more judiciously.


----------



## tdc (Jan 17, 2011)

There are different types of vibrato, some quite subtle and enjoyable but generally I agree with PetrB. I think it is easy to over do and the music generally suffers as a result.

The only style of music where a lot of vibrato works for me is in the blues.


----------



## Ingélou (Feb 10, 2013)

Yes, I'm afraid I find some of the 'classic' violinists of the past (daren't name them) a bit too rich and syrupy because of the vibrato and I'm pleased that that sort of sound is now rather out of fashion.


----------



## Headphone Hermit (Jan 8, 2014)

Sir Roger Norrington gave a strong defence of his position on vibrato 11 years ago

"It started in the 1920s with an overenthusiastic soloist and has tainted orchestral sound ever since. Roger Norrington calls for an end to vibrato" http://www.theguardian.com/books/2003/mar/01/featuresreviews.guardianreview9


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

Headphone Hermit said:


> Sir Roger Norrington gave a strong defence of his position on vibrato 11 years ago
> 
> "It started in the 1920s with an overenthusiastic soloist and has tainted orchestral sound ever since. Roger Norrington calls for an end to vibrato" http://www.theguardian.com/books/2003/mar/01/featuresreviews.guardianreview9


Great article, thank you!..Loved, "Schoenberg likened vibrato to the unpleasant sound of a billy-goat."


----------



## Bulldog (Nov 21, 2013)

I favor as little vibrato as possible and find string vibrato especially irritating.


----------



## superhorn (Mar 23, 2010)

Norrignton's strictures on string vibrato must be taken with a grain of salt . He's 
insufferably arrogant and dogmatic in this matter . For string players to play 
the music of the past with zero vibrato is not authentic at all , certainly not
music of the late 19th and early 20th century .
Norrington has done Elgar and Mahler with no string vibrato . This despite the fact
that on the classic recording of the Elgar violin concerto with Fritz Kreisler and the 
composer conducting , Kreisler plays with vibrato . If this had been anathema at
the time, would Elgar even have approved the recording for release.? I doubt it.
Mahler ? In the Mahler centenary year , 1960 , an elderly retired violinist who had
played under Mahler when he was music director of the New York Philharmonic 
was interviewed . According to him, when rehearsing his symphonies with the orchestra,
the composer was CONSTANTLY ASKING THE STRINGS FOR MORE VIBRATO !.
Sorry, Roger, you;ve got egg on your face .


----------



## Headphone Hermit (Jan 8, 2014)

I don't dispute your points, superhorn. 

Sir Roger is well known for an uncompromising (and rather controversial) view on the matter. I'm often sceptical when someone has a dogmatic view that approaches the 'I have the one and only true way of seeing things' type of answer when it comes to musical interpretation. Many roads lead to Rome


----------



## tdc (Jan 17, 2011)

superhorn does have a point, the era of music clearly makes a difference as to how much vibrato should be used. I can't help but notice that all the posters who have expressed strong dislike of vibrato in this thread (from past observation) tend to prefer other eras of classical music over the Romantic era.


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

Schoenberg's view was a bit more nuanced: "Vibrato has degenerated into a mannerism just as intolerable as portamento-legato....But I find even worse [than the overuse of portamento] the goat-like bleating used by many instrumentalists to curry favor with the public. This bad habit is so general that one could begin to doubt one's own judgement and taste, did one not occasionally have the pleasure, as I did recently, of finding oneself supported by a true artist. I listened on the radio to Pablo Casals playing the Dvorak Cello Concerto. Extremely sparing vibrato, exclusively to give life to long notes, and carried out with moderation, not too quickly, not too slowly, and without detriment to intonation. _Never_ that sentimental portamento."


----------



## Eschbeg (Jul 25, 2012)

Yes, Norrington is always very selective with the evidence he reports. He often uses a single remark by a single person as the standard by which an entire time period's performance style is determined. He's been called out on it so many times that he pretty much had no choice but to insert that last sentence in the above-linked article: "The reason to do so is not because pure tone is 'authentic', but because it is beautiful, expressive and exciting." In other words, it really does just comes down to personal taste in the end. This article is actually a bit of a refresher to me: it shows, maybe, that HIP performers are starting to realize personal taste is perfectly fine and acceptable justification in itself for playing music in a certain way. Trying to prove we have the composer's permission (let alone doing so disingenuously) is just an unnecessary distraction from what can otherwise be really marvelous recordings, as I find Norrington's to be.


----------



## dgee (Sep 26, 2013)

tdc said:


> I can't help but notice that all the posters who have expressed strong dislike of vibrato in this thread (from past observation) tend to prefer other eras of classical music over the Romantic era.


Add me to that list! Although I think of it more as a dislike of an older style of playing where the "romantic aesthetic" was undisputedly king and applied to everything - I particularly find that in recordings from before the eighties. There are some vibrato shockers in singers and string players (Lucia Popp, Gundula Janowitz, Christian Ferras, du Pre (amongst others) take a bow) and don't forget the "Mozart goes to Hollywood" style where big vibrating was just one of the many crimes.

Less vibrato generally I see as part of a more clever approach to playing music and one that doesn't shy away from technical excellence and cleanliness being table stakes (not a bonus) for pro playing


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

superhorn said:


> on the classic recording of the Elgar violin concerto with Fritz Kreisler and the
> composer conducting , Kreisler plays with vibrato . If this had been anathema at the time, would Elgar even have approved the recording for release.?


I think you are very naive in thinking that Elgar, or any composer, once all is contracted and underway for a recording, has such powers as to tell a soloist to completely alter their signature sound or to block the release of a recording because they did not approve of it. It is also naive to think that a composer would only accept an ideal soloist vs. a world renowned player who would further bring an audience to the piece, even if they had a marked preference for another.

Elgar may have loved the vibrato, may have not liked it much as well. I'll wait for a statement in the composer's handwriting to that effect, thank you.

The forced editing of saying what you think or feel about the end product being sold should not be foreign to anyone if they just think of publicly dissing that big project your company workplace just completed... you're shooting yourself in the foot and maybe losing your income while at it: so many composer / performer endorsements are redolent with the cheery-faced big fat white lies that go along with collegiality, all to the point of pushing the project toward success.

Mahler's directives outside of what is marked in his printed scores (and they are numbered and various) are not after the fact revisions, but specific directives to specific orchestras or players in performances. Some are to 'correct balance' due to one player, or the acoustics of a specific hall. His written-in over his original markings in the score directives found on the conductor's scores used in performance are from such occasions: reports of what he was calling for from the NYPhil at that time could fall in a similar category. [Some scholars, pouring over these scores marked-over by Mahler specifically due to circumstance in performance have sometimes mistaken those marks made by the composer as his revisions, which there is no indication they were.)

I think all know Norrington, correct or not, as an extreme hard-headed reactionary, and I think no one but Norrington is doing non-vibrato "just because," because common sense has even amateurs recognizing it is pretty dead-sounding.

Hollywood sound tracks and how they were / are played did exacerbate the use of more and more vibrato, the schmaltz sound, and that has carried over into the classical milieu, in and out of the recording studios. That vibrato in excess was the sound best picked up by early audio recording equipment is also a known fact, which is one reason Kreisler, instead of another fiddler, was 'hot' for recording in the earlier era of recording.

There is a repeat cycle of events in music history pertaining to both composition and performance practice: a stylistic trait or technique later becomes more and more exaggerated (EX: performance practice of rubato in romantic solo piano music) to a point of distortion -- that the application of vibrato has a similar history is pretty much not in doubt.

I would never go for complete non-vibrato unless it was a specified effect, the sound is too 'flat-line' and has no feeling of forward momentum.

Stravinsky, conducting his own works, well up into the 1960's, constantly had orchestras delivering performance of his work very much as if it were still late romantic style. These things become acquired, get exaggerated over time, and included vibrato, portamento where none were marked, and hosts of other stylistic tics.


----------



## Ingélou (Feb 10, 2013)

tdc said:


> superhorn does have a point, the era of music clearly makes a difference as to how much vibrato should be used. I can't help but notice that all the posters who have expressed strong dislike of vibrato in this thread (from past observation) tend to prefer other eras of classical music over the Romantic era.


Era of music, and era of taste in listeners; my grandmother (b 1889) adored warbly violin playing & I disliked it, long before I was 'into' classical music; probably I was affected by the 'irreverent' anti-sentimental fashions of the sixties. 
But it's a fair cop, guv - *now*, I do like early & baroque music rather than Romantic.

 Actually, my preference for light or no vibrato might even be sour grapes. It's my third go at the violin and I still can't do it...


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

Depends entirely on the style and piece in question. No general preference here.


----------



## ShropshireMoose (Sep 2, 2013)

It's really just down to personal taste. I suppose that excess in anything is not good. Personally I've never cared for anything that seems to be applied from the outside rather than coming from within. Thus, Kreisler's vibrato seems as natural a part of his playing as breathing would be to anyone. Perlman on the other hand seems- to my ears- to impose a mammoth vibrato on his playing which seems forced and unnatural, this I must reiterate is in MY opinion, therefore I am somewhat less keen to hear him. Kreisler, sadly never recorded the Elgar Concerto, the violinist on that recording is Yehudi Menuhin, who does have a lot of vibrato, but Elgar stoutly defended his playing and performance in the face of criticism from Ernest Newman, so one must presume that he liked it. I've always preferred the Albert Sammons performance- vibrato there, but rather more controlled. 
With regard to Norrington, he is unsufferably arrogant, a friend of mine whom was a very fine singer, once auditioned for him, and at the end of the audition, Norrington said, "I think the first thing you need to do is go home and throw all your records of Gigli into the bin." More than one road to Rome as someone else has sagely remarked on this thread and Norrington and his ilk would do well to remember that. In his article one notes with interest that whilst desperate to convince everyone that they should get rid of vibrato and citing historic recordings with a lack of vibrato as his reason for so doing, he does not enter in a passionate plea for the return of the portamento which can also be heard in swathes on many of those recordings. A case of wanting things to sound as he does purely on his own terms, which is fine, but if you're not going to go the whole hog yourself then you really shouldn't lambast those who choose a different approach. It would be interesting to know what he feels about portamento. Personally I like it, though I gather from friends of mine who are violinists that it is difficult to do it and make it sound good. Kreisler of course could and did, but there's only ever been one Kreisler.........


----------



## ShropshireMoose (Sep 2, 2013)

Duplicate post. Not sure why. Retires confused to a glass of whisky.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

ShropshireMoose said:


> With regard to Norrington, he is unsufferably arrogant.


There ARE complete jerks who nonetheless point out historic facts: no one has to take their personal dictates as law... The time-line of vibrato, long before I heard of Norrington or read that article, has been written here and there, quite the same re: early recordings and what the equipment picked up best, or at all, for decades prior Norrington's article. The place of vibrato in Hollywood orchestral scores is also known and documented.

That he has said a number of things I have found said well before, and happen to agree, is no reason to discard those things because one infamously arrogant individual also said them.

It is, too, a matter of taste; there we agree. To a number of people, the points he made about a lucidity of sound with less (not none) vibrato is proved in the hearing, and just as there is no perfect agreement on a lower pitch for period music, a lot of that, scholarly research plus the hearing, sounds 'very right' to many scholars, musicians and audience members.

I seriously doubt that the heavy schmaltz of a huge amount of vibrato is ever what the late romantics intended, and to me those works sound better with _less_ than was used in older performance practice. An absolute pronouncement to ban it altogether should be taken with less than a grain of salt.

String soloists who use what to me is a lot of vibrato turn me away, because I hear a distorted pitch where others might hear that not, and find it 'emotionally expressive.' I do think a less exaggerated more 'natural' vibrato, multiplied by forty for a large orchestral violin section, is already quite enough to do the job


----------



## Weston (Jul 11, 2008)

I love vibrato! It's tasty like fresh spice, but I don't want my tomato Florentine soup to taste like pepper.


----------



## SixFootScowl (Oct 17, 2011)

My preference is for little to no vibrato unless specified by the composer. What is the purpose of vibrato? I once read that is was to help prevent the singer's voice from being damaged from heavy use (presumably by giving it small repeated breaks).


----------



## ArtMusic (Jan 5, 2013)

Vibrato is all about good taste. Too much vibrato just clouds the notes especially with early music and the natural elegance of Baroque and Classical sounds just sound like a wanna-be Romantic sound, which doesn't work.


----------



## Andreas (Apr 27, 2012)

I don't subscribe to Norringtons dogmatism or his historical analysis, but I do prefer non-vibrato sound. Which is why I often prefer HIP recordings, even though I am not as such overly interested in historically-informed performances.

I find that vibrato destabilizes the harmonies and gives the music a persistently wagnerian quality. Which is also the reason, I guess, it's so popular and the norm.

I prefer it as an accent or momentary effect, ideally during the final strech of a long-held note: the way a muscle, if held under tension for too long, will eventually start shaking and lose control.


----------



## superhorn (Mar 23, 2010)

The problem with the anti-vibrato crowd is that they've thrown the proverbial baby out with
the bathwater . It wouldn't be a good idea to play the Bach partitas for violin with the kind
of throbbing schmaltzy vibrato of a gypsy style violinist , but no vibrato at all in string playing
is the aural equivalent of flat champagne .


----------



## Ingélou (Feb 10, 2013)

When music has no or almost no vibrato, as in HIP baroque, it often has the most lovely sprigs & trills instead - certainly not flat champagne, but more like 'the true, the blushful Hippocrene, with beaded bubbles winking at the brim'.


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

I wouldn't be surprised if folks hated Bach, Handel, Mozart and Haydn 50 years ago because their works were performed incorrectly with heavy vibrato and relatively slow tempos; deadly to this music as far as I'm concerned.

These days I only listen to those composers with period instruments.

Even Beethoven's keyboard sonatas sound more to my liking on Broadwood fortepiano replicas.


----------



## Bulldog (Nov 21, 2013)

superhorn said:


> The problem with the anti-vibrato crowd is that they've thrown the proverbial baby out with
> the bathwater . It wouldn't be a good idea to play the Bach partitas for violin with the kind
> of throbbing schmaltzy vibrato of a gypsy style violinist , but no vibrato at all in string playing
> is the aural equivalent of flat champagne .


You need to realize that there isn't any problem at all. You want vibrato - go for it, and I'll do the same with minimum vibrato.
We both get what we want.


----------



## Yardrax (Apr 29, 2013)

Florestan said:


> What is the purpose of vibrato? I once read that is was to help prevent the singer's voice from being damaged from heavy use (presumably by giving it small repeated breaks).


There are no breaks in the voice with vibrato, it's simply an oscillation of pitch. It doesn't have a 'purpose' as such, it occurs to a certain extent naturally in healthily produced singing voices and instrumentalists use it to give their playing a more vocal quality.


----------



## superhorn (Mar 23, 2010)

Vibrato is like marijuana - it shouldn't be criminalized !





:lol: :lol: :lol:


----------



## SixFootScowl (Oct 17, 2011)

Yardrax said:


> There are no breaks in the voice with vibrato, it's simply an oscillation of pitch. It doesn't have a 'purpose' as such, it occurs to a certain extent naturally in healthily produced singing voices and instrumentalists use it to give their playing a more vocal quality.


I stated it poorly. Didn't mean breaks as in stopping the sound, but breaks as in perhaps part of the vibrato sequence would be more relaxing (i.e., a break from the tougher job) and thus ease the tension on the vocal cords or something like that. I do appreciate your response and didn't even think of the instrumental vibrato part.


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

Florestan said:


> My preference is for little to no vibrato unless specified by the composer. What is the purpose of vibrato? I once read that is was to help prevent the singer's voice from being damaged from heavy use (presumably by giving it small repeated breaks).


While I identify with your preference and really love pure, unwavering tones for some music, your wish for "no vibrato unless specified by the composer," if observed, would almost surely violate the expectations and intentions of most composers of opera for a century and a half at least. Just because it isn't specified by the composer doesn't mean it was not intended or anticipated. Most of the time it was taken for granted and so not specified. As with most common practice string music, one would notate when one specifically _does not_ want vibrato, not when one wants it.

Just speculating as to purpose, but since vibrato occurs naturally in human voices (as Yardax points out), perhaps systematically controlling it is considered better than leaving it to chance?


----------



## peeyaj (Nov 17, 2010)




----------



## SixFootScowl (Oct 17, 2011)

EdwardBast said:


> While I identify with your preference and really love pure, unwavering tones for some music, your wish for "no vibrato unless specified by the composer," if observed, would almost surely violate the expectations and intentions of most composers of opera for a century and a half at least. Just because it isn't specified by the composer doesn't mean it was not intended or anticipated. Most of the time it was taken for granted and so not specified. As with most common practice string music, one would notate when one specifically _does not_ want vibrato, not when one wants it.
> 
> Just speculating as to purpose, but since vibrato occurs naturally in human voices (as Yardax points out), perhaps systematically controlling it is considered better than leaving it to chance?


Very informative post. I was not aware of this and should have stated it as "no vibrato unless it was the intention of the composer." Thanks.


----------



## lupinix (Jan 9, 2014)

I especially don't like singing with too much vibrato, it makes me a bit sick


----------



## senza sordino (Oct 20, 2013)

I can't imagine the violin concerti of the 19th century without vibrato, those I'm listening to right now. But even some Baroque has a little vibrato. Vibrato can be wide or narrow, and late in the note's duration, or quick. I think you'll find some of the Bach violin works, even HIP performers will wiggle a little on the long notes. I'll listen more carefully next time I listen to the Bach double concerto.

Maxim Vengerov, whom I'm listening to as I type, plays a long note and the vibrato gets wider and wider and wider and wider during the duration of the long note. Milking the sound for all it's value, sounds great. 

Now in my case, I use vibrato to hide my poor intonation and bow technique & tone production. But that's me and my problem.


----------



## ErvinNy (Mar 5, 2014)

*The evidence of early orchestral performances on film*

I've written up an article about vibrato usage in orchestral performance several months ago. I looked into old films to check the degree of vibrato. http://www.fugue.us/Vibrato_History_E.html


----------



## Whistler Fred (Feb 6, 2014)

I wonder how much instrument construction plays into this debate, particularly string instruments. I like the bright sound of period strings that use vibrato sparingly (if at all), but when I hear a similar approach on a modern violin it strikes me as thin and a bit strained. Were 19th Century string instruments designed structurally to sound better with more frequent vibrato use? 

In general I don’t like the thick and perpetual vibrato used to get, as PetrB nicely puts it, the “Hollywood Sound.” I find this to be the aural equivalent of an artificial sweetener. Beyond that, it may depend on the musical period and context and the skills of the performers.


----------



## danielsshao (Jan 20, 2013)

Depends on the era of the composition, I'd agree. I don't like Baroque works or Classical works played with any vibrato, and I might stretch that to even include a few borderline Romantics. However, I think vibrato is kind of to be expected for the typical Romantic concerto and anything onwards. When you do use it, good (not overused) vibrato can really help to improve your tone quality and add expression, but too much in my opinion turns into the "syrupy" sound I've seen other people here talk about.


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

Rather shaky ground for a topic.


----------



## GGluek (Dec 11, 2011)

A couple of points:

Shorter bows were employed in the Baroque and classical eras, so wide and widely used string vibrato was less possible to begin with.

Vibrato, like anything else (Baroque ornamentation. . .) is a question of local, regional, national (Czech opera singers?) and period style.

Like anything else,if used subtly and not indiscriminately, and for emphasis in the right place, it can be an amazingly effective tool.

When my older son was learning the violin (he unfortunately seldom plays now) he had a left hand to kill for. When he played the Meditation from Thais, he could make the whole room swoon. There was also a Vivaldi slow movement he made actually listenable but subtle application of vibrato in places -- although you could hear the composer turning over in his grave. 

When I was a student, no one complained about the Juilliard String Quartet's Mozart, although the bow strokes were far longer and the vibrato far mores pronounced than Mozart ever wuld have heard.

My personal dictum, arrived at while comparing Karl Richter's b-minor Mass with Harnoncourt's then new original instrument recording, was: A performance either works or it doesn't.


----------



## neoshredder (Nov 7, 2011)

Vibrato is cool.


----------

