Dear Kurt:
You are entitled to your opinion, as is your teacher. I think much
of your lengthy essay is not correct, particularly the discussion of
string instruments.
> Vibrato also occurs in other instruments as
> well, but must be forced by the instrumental player, and unlike
> singing, there is usually no variation in the pitch, though there
is
> one in the volume.
At one time I was a not-too-bad 'cellist, and I studied with several
very distinguished teachers. As I was taught, vibrato in the cello
anyway is not a variation in volume - which would mean doing
something funny with the bow, it is a rocking back and forth of the
left hand/finger in a direction parallel to the string - meaning one
rotates the contact point of the finger so that the pitch varies
slightly up and down.
You further wrote,
> String players, when producing vibrato, must physically pull on the
same
> string in order to produce this effect.
Again, I do not believe this is true. A pulling motion would be
perpendicular to the string - and while perhaps an electric guitarist
might bend a string in this manner, a classical string player would
generally not - the rocking of the finger varies the contact point
along the length of the string causing the vibrating portion of the
string to be slightly longer or shorter.
I would add that simply because a famous singer says something in a
book does not mean it is true.
As far as "no vibrato" - I think this is a perception issue. I was a
fan of a group called the "Singers Unlimited" that used multi-
tracking to create the effect of a larger ensemble from 4 voices and
to sing the complex vocal jazz arrangements of Gene Puerling. Often
people will marvel at the "purity" and "clarity" of their sound and
claim it is "without vibrato." These singers, as virtually all good
singers I have heard - including the early music singers and groups
like Chanticleer, definitely have vibrato in their singing, although
it can be more subtle than in other forms of singing.
Cheers,
Michael Gordon
|
