Tremolo

[Wolf Molkentin]

Trying to insert "my" South African video as "media" - now that I learned this could be done here :

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ykai8tI1orY&feature=related

 

P.S.: I myself do appreciate the coexistence of "academic" and "practical" viewpoints a lot.

Edited September 5, 2011 by blue eyed sailor

[Gerry]

Vibrato? How do you do that?

Sit below a ceiling fan!

[JimLucas]

The concertina is in fact incapable of either vibrato or tremolo in the true sense by definition. My acceptance of either then is meaningless as it happens, I was trying to join in the thread using generic terms. I rather like Rob's attempts to recreate the affects as far as is possible and pretty much resent your attempts to turn this into a scientific debate asking me if I 'accept' criteria that are pretty much academic because they don't really apply to the matter in question.

Pete, I'm sorry you misunderstood me, apparently both my meaning and my purpose.

While I see nothing wrong "scientific debate", I wasn't the one who started that, and I was simply trying to better understand your own contribution to the existing discussion. But instead of helping me understand by answering my questions, you take offense that I asked them?

 

Others (including, I believe, the original poster) were discussing a technical distinction between "tremolo" and "vibrato", as well as how -- or whether -- either effect could be produced by a concertina. In common, non-technical usage, the two are generally not distinguished from each other, which is not surprising, as I don't think there's any similar technical distinction between "trembling" and "vibrating" in English. But the discussion preceding your post seemed to have accepted the existence of the technical distinction, even if not everyone felt that it was necessarily "wrong" to use the words interchangeably.

 

But as far as I could tell, what Rob is doing in your example video, beautiful though it is, is not even close to being an example of what was being discussed. It's neither "trembling" nor "vibrating", both of which involve rapid variation. Well, you also said, "but Rob is capable of using the technique with great subtlety," which seemed to leave open the possibility that he could use the same technique to achieve an actual trembling or vibrating effect. So I asked you to clarify what you meant. I'm still hoping for an answer.

 

...asking me if I 'accept' criteria that are pretty much academic because they don't really apply to the matter in question.

Well, the others in the discussion seem to agree that the distinction does apply to the matter in question. But I very deliberately said, "...for the sake of discussion within this thread...." Because if you aren't willing to use the words in the way as they are used by the others in the discussion, then you're not really taking part in the same discussion, you're only sabotaging it. The meanings used within a given discussion needn't affect the way you use those same terms in other contexts, but they are important to communication and understanding within the discussion.

 

The concertina is in fact incapable of either vibrato or tremolo in the true sense by definition.

I don't know what definition(s) you're using, or what you consider the "true sense" to be, but the other participants in the discussion seem to disagree with you, even as they disagree among themselves about the details.

 

...I was trying to join in the thread using generic terms.

Your intention may have been to "join in", but you have apparently rejected the basic premise of the discussion, yet by not saying so (until later, in your response to me), you instead introduced confusion and disruption.

 

Tell me Jim, exactly, how tremolo and vibrato can be applied to concertina playing in the strictest, technically correct terms? Describe if you will, proper practise techniques that will help me to achieve both tremolo and vibrato on the English concertina.

Why should I tell you this?

I have not (at least not in this discussion) claimed that either is even possible.

 

I have only attempted to understand more clearly what others (including yourself) have been discussing, which becomes very difficult if they/you use the same words but mean different things by them.

[Daniel Hersh]

The Noel Hill and the South African example above are both true tremolo.

I think that Jody got it right. It looks to me like they're both doing the same thing with the concertina - the South African player is just doing it much more vigorously.

[Wolf Molkentin]

The Noel Hill and the South African example above are both true tremolo.

I think that Jody got it right. It looks to me like they're both doing the same thing with the concertina - the South African player is just doing it much more vigorously.

D'accord.

 

I would like to add that Piet Visser (same as some other players overthere) is using tremolo in a more rhythmic way, thus emphasizing harmony-backed structures, whereas in the Noel Hill example it appears to intensify a melody or certain parts of it (which may make it a suitable substitute for the none-available - pitch - vibrato then; as mentioned above by Jody Kruskal in his former post #10).

[Rod]

The Noel Hill and the South African example above are both true tremolo.

I think that Jody got it right. It looks to me like they're both doing the same thing with the concertina - the South African player is just doing it much more vigorously.

 

Yes Jody. I agree. Both players are demonstrating 'tremolo' in their own particular chosen manner. The intensity and character of the tremolo is entirely a matter of individual choice and preference and their is ample evidence to suggest that the majority seem happy to play without it...... a shame but perhaps preferable to playing it crudely and insensitively.

[Leonard]

David, in answer to your question....no,I certainly do not apply tremolo in the style of the South African player and have no wish to do so. I prefer to use the technique in a far more restrained, delicate, gentle, less obtrusive manner.

Simon Thoumire does that in slower tunes: just to colour the character of the sound, especially for longer notes at the end of the line.

 

For example:

As a more obvious effect in

And in an more delicate way in

(well recognizable in 0:37 - 0:42)

 

As I just learned in this thread technically this is tremolo, but its musical function is very comparable to vibrato on other instruments; on a violin for instance.

[Wolf Molkentin]

Simon Thoumire does that in slower tunes: just to colour the character of the sound, especially for longer notes at the end of the line.

Thank you for the post (the latter video being particularly moving).

 

I was just trying it out in a similar way (like he does it around 0:40) as a result of our forum discussion this evening - feeling further encouraged thereby now... (and as well challenged by the beauty of his playing once again).

 

 

As I just learned in this thread technically this is tremolo, but its musical function is very comparable to vibrato on other instruments; on a violin for instance.

Yes, you can use it like that, but you might as well do other things with that whole lotta shakin'...

Edited September 5, 2011 by blue eyed sailor

[Pete Dunk]

Pete, I'm sorry you misunderstood me, apparently both my meaning and my purpose.

So am I Jim, please accept my apologies for any misunderstanding on my part. I'm pretty unrepentant about the content of my original post though (before you joined the debate you understand) so let's get a few things straight from the off. The terms 'vibrato' and 'tremolo' are straightforwardly defined in terms of musical theory, the means of achieving them are described in simple terms that it would be difficult to misinterpret. Largely they limit the types of instrument capable of producing these effects.

 

Vibrato - subtle variations in pitch, or, technically more correct, frequency modulation, is by definition impossible on a concertina because it has a fixed pitch that can only be varied in the crudest sense by 'overblowing' to bend notes. This of course produces unacceptable changes in volume levels and ruins the performance.

 

Tremolo on the other hand should be possible on most instruments but presents technical difficulties on many. Some stringed instruments are well suited to this, classical guitar is probably the most obvious, flat picked mandolins as mentioned earlier in the thread work very well too. The giant of the string family, the violin doesn't fare too well though and largely avoids approaching the subject.

 

To be honest bellows shaking - particularly the uncontrolled mid-air variety - doesn't even begin to approach proper tremolo in the true definition of the term (i.e. four semiquavers to replace each crotchet) and I'm quite alarmed by the number of players willing to accept it as a proper technique. Rob Harbron does at least acknowledge his version as the best he can do under the circumstances and has spent a great deal of time refining his technique.

 

Pete.

[Pete Dunk]

I should add of course that the video I linked to isn't an example of Rob Harbron exhibiting techniques that necessarily relate to this thread. It might just give you pause for thought before posting though ...

Edited September 5, 2011 by tallship

[Doug Barr]

Hugh Healy at 1:16 and 1:51

[Wolf Molkentin]

Hugh Healy at 1:16 and 1:51

Funny! The "more vigorously" type, this time used for single note melody playing...

 

 

I'm quite alarmed by the number of players willing to accept it as a proper technique.

Why not leave it to the "individual choice and preference" (Rod, again)?

 

And, i.m.o.: The way Simon Thoumire is demonstrating his approach comes quite natural under the hands...

 

 

By the way, my long-standing personal reference for the "tremolo" effect:

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kAtH0RJzaN4&feature=related

Edited September 6, 2011 by blue eyed sailor

[david_boveri]

Hi David,

 

The Noel Hill portion, and all the clip was pretty interesting. You may well call what he does "vibrato" and it's very tastefully done too. In fact, it is a tremolo amplitude effect. Any change in frequency is minor (a cent or two if that) compared to the amplitude shifting. You may be modeling this tremolo on a true vibrato that fiddle players often use and so calling it vibrato makes sense to you, but for clear communication about it you might find it helpful to know the difference between the two effects.

 

yeah, i'm aware that it is technically a tremolo. didn't i say so in my post?

 

it might not actually be vibrato according to the dictionary definition, but i would argue that it's done to the same effect. i haven't done an acoustical analysis of the sound, but i would suspect it is closer to a tremolo (according to your definition) insofar as it is mostly an oscillation of amplitude.

 

so, i think that it is inaccurate to suggest i do not know the distinction, when i myself alluded to it repeatedly. although i did later mention i had not done a mathematical analysis of the pitch or amplitude oscillations, i think that the very fact i mentioned this would suggest i knew the distinction. you can disagree with my distinction, but as you can see, i myself called it a tremolo. the use of the word "might" does not

 

looking up vibrato, it seems that depending on the context, the oscillation can be between 10 and 100 cents (tending towards the higher end). i was guessing the pitch variation in the video i posted was at a maximum of 3 to 5 cents, which is why i said it was "mostly an oscillation of amplitude." it is actually rare to encounter a true vibrato or a true tremolo, at least that's what we were taught in my physics of acoustics class. in practice, the words are sometimes used interchangeably, and it is in this spirit that i call it vibrato, and hesitate to call it a tremolo except in a technical discussion.

 

now, if you are referring to my initial post, i did not say tremolo on purpose. in casual conversation, i find it cumbersome to make that sort of a distinction. that is why i initially used the term "vibrato," rather than saying that it was a "tremolo with a pattern of oscillation in amplitude that approximates the frequency of pitch oscillations in vibrato."

Edited September 7, 2011 by david_boveri

[Rod]

Hi David,

 

The Noel Hill portion, and all the clip was pretty interesting. You may well call what he does "vibrato" and it's very tastefully done too. In fact, it is a tremolo amplitude effect. Any change in frequency is minor (a cent or two if that) compared to the amplitude shifting. You may be modeling this tremolo on a true vibrato that fiddle players often use and so calling it vibrato makes sense to you, but for clear communication about it you might find it helpful to know the difference between the two effects.

 

yeah, i'm aware that it is technically a tremolo. didn't i say so in my post?

 

it might not actually be vibrato according to the dictionary definition, but i would argue that it's done to the same effect. i haven't done an acoustical analysis of the sound, but i would suspect it is closer to a tremolo (according to your definition) insofar as it is mostly an oscillation of amplitude.

 

so, i think that it is inaccurate to suggest i do not know the distinction, when i myself alluded to it repeatedly. although i did later mention i had not done a mathematical analysis of the pitch or amplitude oscillations, i think that the very fact i mentioned this would suggest i knew the distinction. you can disagree with my distinction, but as you can see, i myself called it a tremolo. the use of the word "might" does not

 

looking up vibrato, it seems that depending on the context, the oscillation can be between 10 and 100 cents (tending towards the higher end). i was guessing the pitch variation in the video i posted was at a maximum of 3 to 5 cents, which is why i said it was "mostly an oscillation of amplitude." it is actually rare to encounter a true vibrato or a true tremolo, at least that's what we were taught in my physics of acoustics class. in practice, the words are sometimes used interchangeably, and it is in this spirit that i call it vibrato, and hesitate to call it a tremolo except in a technical discussion.

 

now, if you are referring to my initial post, i did not say tremolo on purpose. in casual conversation, i find it cumbersome to make that sort of a distinction. that is why i initially used the term "vibrato," rather than saying that it was a "tremolo with a pattern of oscillation in amplitude that approximates the frequency of pitch oscillations in vibrato."

 

When I initiated this topic I said "I believe there is some difference of opinion regarding the true definitions of 'Tremolo' and 'Vibrato'". I reckon I was right !! When it comes to what I call 'Tremolo' I am just happy to get on and do it instinctively where I consider it appropriate without any further technical analysis of the subject !

[Anglo-Irishman]

looking up vibrato, it seems that depending on the context, the oscillation can be between 10 and 100 cents (tending towards the higher end). i was guessing the pitch variation in the video i posted was at a maximum of 3 to 5 cents, which is why i said it was "mostly an oscillation of amplitude." it is actually rare to encounter a true vibrato or a true tremolo, at least that's what we were taught in my physics of acoustics class. in practice, the words are sometimes used interchangeably, and it is in this spirit that i call it vibrato, and hesitate to call it a tremolo except in a technical discussion.

 

now, if you are referring to my initial post, i did not say tremolo on purpose. in casual conversation, i find it cumbersome to make that sort of a distinction. that is why i initially used the term "vibrato," rather than saying that it was a "tremolo with a pattern of oscillation in amplitude that approximates the frequency of pitch oscillations in vibrato."

 

I agree that there are times and places for technical correctness, but that one must occasionally allow for the fuzziness of non-techie language.

I would add that vibrato and tremolo are not only physical phenomena, but also playing techniques that are used for certain effects.

 

I play the mandolin (European style, as opposed to Bluegrass) and I also played the violin as a youth. So for me, tremolo is "what you do on a mandolin" and vibrato is "what you do on a violin." Vibrato, i.e. pitch variation, comes naturally on the violin, because it has no frets, and can thus handle the microtonality involved. Tremolo, i.e. amplitude variation, comes naturally on the mandolin, becuase it has a loud attack and fast decay, so each repeated stiking of the strings produces a new peak amplitude - but the frets dictate that the pitch remains constant.

 

However, I see a further difference. Tremolo on the mandolin is the standard technique for rendering slow-moving melodic passages or long, held notes. Vibrato on the violin, however, is an embellishment for effect.

(Modern violinists seem to use vibrato all the time, as if it were the standard technique. But this was not always so. In Baroque music, the polyphony emerges more clearly when the notes are steady. Romantic period music requires the violin soloist to use vibrato most of the time to make the solo violin stand out against the orchestra. So this vibrato is also used for effect.)

 

My practical definition of "tremolo" would be: "A playing technique that allows instruments with a fast-decaying tone to appear to play sustained notes."

And my practical definition of "vibrato" would be: "A playing technique that allows an instrument's sustained tone to be varied for effect."

 

Obviously, the concertina does not need tremolo in this sense, because it has a sustained tone. Any variation of the tone will be for effect, not out of necessity. For practical purposes, the "bellows shake" on a concertina is equivalent to a vibrato on any other instrument with a sustained tone, e.g. violin, flute, oboe, clarinet...

 

Of course, you can emulate tremolo on the violin by moving the bow very quickly up and down on one note, or you can get a fast amplitude variation on the flute or whistle by "rolling an R" while blowing. This is done for effect, because there is a more basic way of sustaining a note.

I suppose the equivalent technique on the concertina would be working the bellows quickly in and out while playing a slow-moving tune. I've heard this on the bayan, and it should be easier on the concertina, with its smaller mass. Only on EC or Duet, of course - it wouldn't work in the bisonoric world!

 

Cheers,

John

[Wolf Molkentin]

It just depends on the personal background I guess.

 

Regarding the Fender Rhodes electric piano you'll find that in an attempt to emulate the "Leslie" (rotary speaker) sound most commonly used with the Hammond "B 3" electric organ they'd be (unsuitably even for that far more complex "Leslie" effect itself) calling it "vibrato", thus installing a pure tremolo (or, splitting it into two channels, "panning") effect on the amplitude of the outputted signal (here'e a reference, if anyone would be interested).

[Doug Barr]

You say potato and I say potahto, You say tomato and I say tomahto

Potato, potahto, Tomato, tomahto, Let's call the whole thing off!

Doug

[Pete Dunk]

You say potato and I say potahto, You say tomato and I say tomahto

Potato, potahto, Tomato, tomahto, Let's call the whole thing off!

Doug

 

It's a matter of definition not pronunciation. I may say tomato and you may say tomahto but if it's a beetroot we're both wrong. What's mostly being described here is bellows shake. It works well, the effect is a valid technique and it's pretty unique to hand held free reed instruments. It does seek to emulate classical techniques described for other instruments but why not just tell it how it is?

 

So the next time you're in a session with a fiddler who wouldn't recognise second position if it jumped up and bit her/him on the nose (notice politically correct reversal of gender to throw feminists off the scent) to demonstrate bellows shake on the fiddle.

 

The resulting waffle should be served with a very large dollop of fresh cream.