Vibrato

Subject: Vibrato
From: Ethereal Purple
Date: 05 Dec 03 - 02:00 PM

I've heard that a vibrato is a natural part of your voice... am I not singing right if it doesn't naturally come? Can one develop it? If I try hard, I can kind of get a vibrato; but it isn't natural. I sing just for my own enjoyment... but I like improving the way I sing - and I'd love to have a vibrato :-).

Subject: RE: Vibrato
From: Amos
Date: 05 Dec 03 - 02:25 PM

I wouldn't necessarily buy that; it may just be an arbitrary. Obviously all voices have vibrations in them, but that isn't what you call vibrato per se; and if you listen tot he voices you admire you may find some of them have very little. And if it isn't natural, I wouldn't force it.

A

Subject: RE: Vibrato
From: Pseudolus
Date: 05 Dec 03 - 02:48 PM

I have found that vibrato is the ability to totally relax the vocal chords and it will come naturally. I also don't think it is a necessary part of the voice. A lot of the folks who I enjoy listening to have little if any vibrato at all. I agree, don't force it, because if you do, you're doing the total opposite of what would create a nice, smooth, vibrato and that is relaxing...so relax and let the listeners enjoy, even if it's just you!


Frank

Subject: RE: Vibrato
From: GUEST,Charmion at work
Date: 05 Dec 03 - 02:49 PM

How old are you? Vocal vibrato tends to increase with age, and at a certain point you have to learn to control it before it takes your voice over completely. Vibrato is a natural characteristic of the human voice -- everybody's got some, but of course some people have more than others.

If you're unhappy with your singing voice, or you just want it to be different from what it is now, what you really need is a voice coach (singing teacher) who can help you make the most of what God gave you. Good voice coaches cost money but, if you're genuinely interested in singing, it's always money well spent.

Subject: RE: Vibrato
From: michaelr
Date: 05 Dec 03 - 03:23 PM

Of course, if you're singing traditional songs, vibrato will be considered undesirable by many.

Cheers,
Michael

Subject: RE: Vibrato
From: John Routledge
Date: 05 Dec 03 - 03:58 PM

When the use of vibrato becomes an affectation then it is generally not too pleasant. Less is better than more in my view :0)

Good luck with your experiments.

Subject: RE: Vibrato
From: SINSULL
Date: 05 Dec 03 - 04:28 PM

I've got it and I think I sound ass if I am singing under water. Remember Snow White at the well?
"I'm wishing
I'm wishing (echo)
For the one I love to find me
To find me (echo)...

Subject: RE: Vibrato
From: Joybell
Date: 05 Dec 03 - 04:42 PM

Yes me too, SINSULL, if I'm not very careful. Soprano voices like mine get right out of hand with vibrato and, as Charmion says, especially as we age. It does depend on what you want to sing. I've spent my life trying to get rid of a natural vibrato or at least to minimize it. I agree a little goes a long way. Experimenting with your voice is a good idea though - gets you knowing what possibilities are there.

Subject: RE: Vibrato
From: Ethereal Purple
Date: 06 Dec 03 - 12:22 AM

I'm 17, Charmion... yeah, maybe I will develop a vibrato as I sing more :-). The problem is that I live in India, and voice coaching isn't as common here. Or I don't think it is - I haven't come across any good voice coaches near where I live. Most singing classes teach Indian classical music - and I'm not particularly fond of vocal Indian classical - wouldn't have much fun singing it. I don't sing for other people - so it's only my enjoyment and satisfaction with my voice I'm talking about here. I have a feeling that I'm not singing properly though...

Subject: RE: Vibrato
From: Charmion
Date: 07 Dec 03 - 11:10 PM

Since you're only 17, EP, youth is probably the most influential factor in the lack of vibrato issue. You are actually at the best possible time of your life to start developing your voice, as you are physically nearly fully grown and intellectually developed enough to analyze your own actions and experiences and draw conclusions from them.

Vocal coaches don't really teach repertoire; they usually work with singers on their repertoire, listening to the sound produced and giving direction to help the singer improve it. This is done by analyzing how the singer produces her sound and teaching her ways to work her body -- the whole body -- so the sound produced is musical and exciting to the listener, and does not stress the body, especially the vocal cords, which are actually folds of soft tissue, and very vulnerable.

The singers who use vocal coaches the most are those working in the European classical tradition, which requires great strength and control. Those opera singers who crank out four acts of Mozart and then go partying after (that's how they get fat) are actually stronger than many an athlete, with years of demanding training behind them. You don't have to be a lieder singer or an opera star in training to benefit from coaching, however, and only a few lessons can make a great difference. And you might find that the Indian classical song tradition has much the same kind of technical requirements, so you could benefit from the expertise available to you without having to swallow the whole camel, as it were.

Any kind of physical conditioning that emphasizes bodily awareness and all-around fitness will also help, and yoga is as good as it gets in that area.

At 17, you have only just started on the path of song. Happy travelling!

Subject: RE: Vibrato
From: John Hardly
Date: 08 Dec 03 - 08:52 AM

I've seen these threads here before, like here:
thread.cfm?threadid=30596#393657

The consensus here seems to be that it's not important -- that all your favorite singers don't have/do it. You give me a list of singers who don't have it and....

1. I bet most of them DO have it
2. I'll make an infinitely longer list of singers who DO have it.
3. My infinitely longer list will contain most people's list of top five singers ever.

I think MOST good singers do have/do it, though the best are so controlled and natural that you don't notice that it is there.

This is the biggest mystery in music. You can search the web endlessly, you can take lessons, you can ask people until you are blue in the face. Nobody can tell you how it's done, where the "vibration" comes from, or how you can attain it.

I think that's because people achieve it in different ways. Some actually do have the natural thing (wherever that is generated from), while others "fake it" by huffing -- changing the volume of air higher and lower, and still others achieve it by varying pitch on a particular note.

Good luck. And if you ever find a straight answer to your question share it with me!!!

Subject: RE: Vibrato
From: Willie-O
Date: 08 Dec 03 - 09:26 AM

I try not to have it.

Cause I only have it when I'm nervous.

Come to think of it, that corresponds with those rare occasions I sing a capella in front of an audience. I think maybe not having a guitar to resonate with makes me a little uncertain of pitch, and that gets me kind of quivering...personally it's not something I strive to have, but that's just me.

Or am I just talking about tremolo, and is that different from vibrato in vocals?

W-O

Subject: RE: Vibrato
From: Peg
Date: 08 Dec 03 - 09:48 AM

I did not have any vibrato when I was 17. This was actualy desirable at times, and I sometimes got solos over other singers at school because of this. I now (at age 40) have some natural vibrato that comes through, but I never tried to cultivate it. Just keep singing and your voice will become what it will...but bear in mind    the female voice does not really reach its fullness and maturity until at least age 28 or so...

Subject: RE: Vibrato
From: GUEST,pdq
Date: 08 Dec 03 - 11:59 AM

Tremolo is a wavering sound produced by change in loudness (=volume), vibrato is a wavering due to change in pitch (=frequency). Both are easily produced with electronic instruments such as organ (=tone oscillator) but are produced in many ways, depending on the type of instrument (including voice). "Huffing" is a new term to me, must refer to a type of tremolo. Learn something every day on ol' Mudcat.

Subject: RE: Vibrato
From: GUEST,Martin Gibson
Date: 08 Dec 03 - 12:03 PM

Personally, vibratos make me cringe.

I was cool to see it parodied in folk music in Mighty Wind.

Subject: RE: Vibrato
From: John Hardly
Date: 08 Dec 03 - 12:20 PM

So, you guys that don't like vibrato (makes you cringe), you don't like...

Stan Rogers
John McCutcheon
Mary Black
Pete Seeger
Tim O'Brien
Alan O'Bryant
Dan Tyminski
Alison Krauss
Ella Fitgerald
Helen O'Connell
Frank Sinatra
Mel Torme
John Pizzarelli
James Taylor
Art Garfunkle
Gordon Lightfoot
Susan Werner
Tracy Grammer
Vance Gilbert
Ruthie Foster
Rani Arbo
Levi Stubbs
Dave Moore
LJ Booth
David Wilcox
Pierce Pettis
Harvey Reid
John Cowan
Paul Robison
Art Thieme

(just a few off the top of my head)

Subject: RE: Vibrato
From: GUEST
Date: 08 Dec 03 - 01:07 PM

There is a huge difference between a nervous tremor and vibrato. I agree with John Hardly - not a single good well known singer doesn't use it. But too much is horrible. It is more a question of tone and control and can be used very effictively to sweeten the end of a long note. If used on every note (opera spings to mind) it gets boring. Listen to a good fiddler playing an air - he will play many notes straight and open up on a few with vibrato - very effective. I learnt by immitating my favourite singers - of course it feels strange at first but if you work at it it will become regular and sweet. It is definitely a good idea to get lessons from someone who know what they're talking about but take care not to have your voice forced into a style different to the one you like - listen to an opera singer singing a folk song if you want to know what I mean.

Subject: RE: Vibrato
From: Willie-O
Date: 08 Dec 03 - 01:22 PM

Well then, I can play a vibrato tone on fiddle or guitar...but I really can't conceptualize either how to produce it, or what it sounds like in a vocal. So hell, I don't even know whether I do it or not...guess I won't worry about it!

Subject: RE: Vibrato
From: GUEST,Martin Gibson
Date: 08 Dec 03 - 02:12 PM

John Hardly

Yes, some on your list do make me cringe. Some are so obscure that their mothers haven't even heard them. Others I can tolerate, as their degree of vibrato is lower than that of braying goats such as Glenn Yarbrough and Buffy St. Marie.

Subject: RE: Vibrato
From: John Hardly
Date: 08 Dec 03 - 04:48 PM

actually, I don't believe there is an obscure singer on my list, though perhaps their mothers still don't know them.

Subject: RE: Vibrato
From: GUEST,Martin Gibson
Date: 08 Dec 03 - 05:01 PM

I would hardly consider the likes of LJ Booth (man or woman?) or Rani Arbo to be ones that have made the record collections or must see concerts of even 4 out of 5 folk music fans. As far as vibratos go, upon further review of the list, some of these have virtually none. Dan Tyminski and James Taylor have hardly a warble.

You left off a well known folk singer, John Stewart. His warble is so definitive you could swear he has an electric fan spinning in from of his mouth.

Subject: RE: Vibrato
From: John Hardly
Date: 08 Dec 03 - 05:35 PM

LJ Booth is a past winner of the Kerrville Folk Festival songwriter award and has appeared on Mountain stage, Good Evening from Minnesota, and has shared dates with David Wilcox, Vance Gilbert, Brooks Williams and others. His songs have been covered by Livingston Taylor, Anne Hills and others.

Rani Arbo was the founder of both Salamander Crossing and Rani Arbo and Daisy Mayhem and has graced the cover of Dirty Linen Magazine, as well as headlining at Telluride, Kerrville, Winnepeg, Winterhawk and many other festivals around N. America.

I have it on good authority that both of their mothers know them. *wink*

Subject: RE: Vibrato
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 08 Dec 03 - 11:51 PM

Sorry PDG

You've got your Tremolo & Vibrato definitions swapped....

You said

Tremolo is a wavering sound produced by change in loudness (=volume), vibrato is a wavering due to change in pitch (=frequency).

The correct defintions are:

Vibrato is a wavering sound produced by change in loudness (=volume),
Tremolo is a beating due to change in pitch (=frequency) - caused by modulation with another very slow pitch (a few cycles per second) or by two pitches a few cycles per second apart.

The violinst produces a wavering of pitch by slightly changing the vibrating length of the string by action of the wrist which allows the finger to "rock" back and forth - "tremolo" - sometimes wrongly called "vibrato". If you change pitch at a few cycles per second on a guitar by string stretch, or bridge cranker handle (electric '70's solo guitars) - strictly that's tremolo. If you shake the guitar or wave it around, you get "doppler" effect - which is a frequency based thing.

The pitch "wobble" does give the ear a sense of volume change too...

Consulted some reference books before I posted this. Of course they may be the wrong books too... :-)

I'm in the proces of rewriting my Piano Accordion for The Recycled Muso postings as I made the exactly same goof there - in my case it is probably just senility... :-)
I can't offer any other excuse... :-)
Now you know why writers need proof readers.... :-)

Now as to exactly what people are referring to in this thread - I have no idea whether we are all referring to the same thing by the same name....

Robin
Murphy Rules! Yes, I made a stuff up in my html with the bolding command which garbled the text - just as well I checked it...

Subject: RE: Vibrato
From: Escamillo
Date: 09 Dec 03 - 12:33 AM

Robin is probably right, tremolo is a more appropiate term to define the sound obtained by variation in pitch, which is the pleasant sound that we hear in classical singers and most of (good)pop singers (not exaggerated). It is the same effect as heard in the violins, cellos etc. It certainly comes with age. Voices with no vibrato (or tremolo) are typically those of children, they are are called "white voices", and you can dramatically hear the difference between a song sung by children and the same sung by mature women. Which one sounds better, depends on the type of song and personal taste. In a Haendel's oratorium, I will always prefer soprano and mezzo voices, and not children voices which could be very sweet but lack a lot of expression.

Exaggerated tremolo in old people comes more from the poor control of the diaphragm than from the vocal chords, producing a variation of air pressure which results in a wide variation of pitch, very unpleasant, and responsible of the existence of so many people who hate Opera. I love Opera, but I can't stand opera goats who are still singing because one day they were famous.

Ethereal Purple will have to wait some years. In the meantime, please don't follow misleading techniques of pop singers, especially nasal singers. Try a classical teacher, and once you get a satisfactory technique, sing whatever you like.

Un abrazo
Andrés (in Buenos Aires)

Subject: RE: Vibrato
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 09 Dec 03 - 12:49 AM

Escamillo

I'm somewhat of a pedant at time... :-)

"Exaggerated tremolo in old people comes more from the poor control of the diaphragm than from the vocal chords, producing a variation of air pressure which results in a wide variation of pitch"

I would have thought the proper word was "vibrato"...

The variation of air pressure normally produces a variation in volume - which is definitely what happens with a piano accordion reed, because they are normally built to keep a constant pitch. However I have seen claims about one specially built with "special reeds" to do pitch bends. There is even a Mudcat thread which mentions about doing pitch bends on a normal P/A with normal reeds, but nobody responded to my request for more info.

Harmonicas do pitch bending by changing the internal shape of the mouth and throat on the inhale - I can assist some of my Low Whistles get better tone on some notes by blowing and changing the shape of my nouth - where the tongue sits and how open the throat is, for example.

Now with the whistle, more air pressure DOES increase the pitch - it's called "blowing in a note" - the extent of more pressure eventually results in the pitch going up to an overtone...

I'm not an expert on the theory of human voice production. Possibly the vocal chords do respond to pressure changes by changing pitch. Perhaps someone with more experience can answer that one - we seem to have no lack of talented people here at Mudcat.

Robin

Subject: RE: Vibrato
From: GUEST,pdq
Date: 09 Dec 03 - 01:57 AM

Robin..or Foolsdroop... please site a source to support your opinion. You are simply wrong. It is bad enough for you to be wrong, but correcting someone whoi s correct is not excusable.

Subject: RE: Vibrato
From: Escamillo
Date: 09 Dec 03 - 02:00 AM

Yes, pressure changes will produce significant changes in pitch, added to the variation in volume, and enough to produce the unpleasant vibrato (or tremolo) characteristic of some old singers. One may try to sing a note while pressing rapidly one's stomach, and will see that it is very difficult to keep a constant pitch. My teachers agree that a good technique to reduce that kind of "voice trembling" is to alternate "crescendo" and "diminuendo" (growing and diminishing) in each note or phrase, thus avoiding a constant flow of air, which is so difficult for some people. (I am a trained amateur singer but not an expert)

Very interesting what you explain about instruments, I'm sure it takes a lot of study to obtain that sound we admire.

Un abrazo,
Andrés

Subject: RE: Vibrato
From: GUEST,M.A.B., its a big horse.
Date: 09 Dec 03 - 04:57 AM

Ethereal Purple - for goodness sake don't try before it's natural, otherwise you'll end up sounding like that blinkin' Charlotte Church. I used to think she sounded trained up to the eyeballs but realised that was probably an insult to voice coaches.

We've got a lady in our choral group who warbles like nobody's business. It's quite off-putting, to the point where a couple of colleagues have questioned whether it's worth carrying on trying to make a good sound in the face of the onslaught,

I always thought that lack of vibrato and tremolo added to the purity of a voice (as in boy sopranos) but I'm beginning to wonder if my ears have been deceiving me. I love Emma Kirkby's voice and I thought it was because of the lack of warble. I'd better go and have another listen.

Subject: RE: Vibrato
From: GUEST,KB
Date: 09 Dec 03 - 08:26 AM

Tremolo = variation in volume
Vibrato = variation in pitch

You can see a visual representation of these variables if you use a spectrograph such as the free PC software referenced in this thread. You can sing into your PC via a mic & see for sure whether you are using tremelo or vibrato (ie you can see, in real time, the variations in pitch and in volume as you sing).

Kris

Subject: RE: Vibrato
From: Uncle_DaveO
Date: 09 Dec 03 - 11:03 AM

When I took classical guitar lessons, I was taught that "tremolo" was produced by rapid repeated plucking of the same string; thus, the same pitch.

Dave Oesterreich

Subject: RE: Vibrato
From: GUEST,emily b
Date: 09 Dec 03 - 04:41 PM

Just to further confuse things... This is what I've been told by my voice teacher. If one can picture (or rather hear) the "beats" of a vibrato, then a tremelo is a vibrato with beats that are too fast. A wobble is when the beats are too slow. A natural vibrator is just right:-). I've posted in another thread a long time ago that a friend of mine was recommending Karan Casey (Irish singer) to me and raving about her lack of vibrato. But she does have a vibrato. It's just not too fast, nor too slow, her voice has a clear tone which is probably what he was referring too.
A female adult voice with no vibrato can either sound harsh like the Eastern European singers, or flute-y like a choir boy.

To Ethereal Purple: try to get some training. If you don't, you run the risk of trying to imitate someone else and you won't be developing your own voice. Plus, you'll end up singing so that YOU think you sound good which can also screw up your voice. Try recording yourself if possible.

Emily

Subject: RE: Vibrato
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 09 Dec 03 - 06:34 PM

PDG
"Robin..or Foolstroupe... please site a source to support your opinion. You are simply wrong. It is bad enough for you to be wrong, but correcting someone who is correct is not excusable."

Well now, "emily b" has nicely added to the confusion - by saying "If one can picture (or rather hear) the "beats" of a vibrato, then a tremelo is a vibrato with beats that are too fast."

This is like comparing apples with oranges - like saying an orange is just like an apple, but with an orange skin... If there are purely (frequency) beats, then it is purely Tremolo. If there are purely volume pulses, then it is purely Vibrato. If there are both - then what word do YOU want to call it? I call it a mix of both - I haven't done a "Humpty Dumpty" yet... :-) To use either word alone to describe the resultant mix of the two effects is at least misleading, in a formal sense. Of course, casual use results in teh smearing of meanings of words - fine for non-technical uses, but useless in any formal approach.

Humpty Dumpty said in Lewis Carol's "Alice" - 'A word means just what I want it to mean' - that's nice and cute for children, but not helpful for communication with others.

It is true in many musical tone generators, including the human voice, that the aural effect is a combined mix of both concepts of volume change and pitch change that people use the words indiscriminately. But to a sound engineer, there is a big difference between volume change and pitch change....

~~~~~~~~~~~~

PDG - I could please ask the same for you. What documentary or anecdotal sources can you cite to prove my statement wrong? Personal opinion is just that.

I am not interested in a slanging match, or "I say you say"...

As a Pipe/electric/electronic organ player since the 1960's, I have been aware of the "tremulant" stop. This affects the frequency - change in pressure on an organ pipe -> frquency change. There is also an apparent volume change to the ear.

I can't find my any of my specific Music Dictionaries and other reference book, they are packed away, but a quick look in my (American) Funk and Wagnall - part of my EB 1963 edition -
on the two words reveals

"Vibrato ... A tembling or pulsating effect, not confined to vocal music, caused by rapid variation of emphasis on the same tone: properly distinguished from tremolo, where there is an alternation of tones."

The crossreferenced definition of Tremolo is not as clear, but definitely not contradictory.

OK, I'm somewhat pedantic - but nuclear scientists are pedantic too - "Oh, there's no real diference between uranioum and plutonium - they both blow up in bombs" - well there's a big difference in critical mass (the minimum amount needed to "explode") and the resultant nasty byproducts....

And I can say, that on all the Piano accordions I have played - any sort of bellows shake technique produces VOLUME CHANGES due to pressure changes in the bellows - the Tremolo effects (frequency) are produced by reed tuning proceedures.

I welcome the meaningful contribution of anyone with relevant input. As I am currently updating my P/A for the Recycled Muso thread, and changing my own belatedly detected error in confusing the two terms - I would appreciate it!

Robin

Subject: RE: Vibrato
From: GUEST,pdq
Date: 09 Dec 03 - 06:52 PM

My definition is from an engineer. It is black and white and stands as the correct definition. What someone said three hundred years ago was (probably) said before these terms were
formally defined. A note held by a vocalist may waver in pitch and volume at the same time. I am quite content to let others give a definition for such an event. Glad I was able to save you from making a mistake in print, since they are impossible undo.

Subject: RE: Vibrato
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 09 Dec 03 - 07:04 PM

With very few exceptins, if you notice the vibrato, there's too much of it. As others have said, don't try to develop it. And listen to yourself, and learn to recognise it and keep it in check.

Of the people in that list I've heard of and enjoy (not too mnay), most generally limit their vibrato.

One exception to that rule, a singer who has quite a noticeable vibrato and still sounds bloody marvellous, is Martin Wyndham-Reed. There's an exception to every rule.

Subject: RE: Vibrato
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 09 Dec 03 - 07:16 PM

Thanks PDG - who is the engineer?

"It is black and white and stands as the correct definition."

Unfortunately an unsupported statement without knowing who said it and when.

Has anyone got a better documented source than EB - "Vibrato ... A tembling or pulsating effect, not confined to vocal music, caused by rapid variation of emphasis on the same tone: properly distinguished from tremolo, where there is an alternation of tones."

Beacuse that's the one I'm using in my discussion - for now....

"What someone said three hundred years ago was (probably) said before these terms were formally defined."

Can you please clarify this?

Robin

Subject: RE: Vibrato
From: GUEST,pdq
Date: 09 Dec 03 - 07:34 PM

Robin...I assume that your term "tremulant stop" pertains to a classic organ, the type that has been in used for hundreds of years. It does not necessarily have anything to do with the current definition of tremolo.

I am a scientist but not an engineer, and would ask that you consult one and get a more authoratative answer if you need one. I will point out that radio is either "amplitude modulated" or "frequency modulated", which are analogs to tremolo and vibrato.

adios...pdq

Subject: RE: Vibrato
From: Uncle_DaveO
Date: 09 Dec 03 - 07:41 PM

PDQ said:

I will point out that radio is either "amplitude modulated" or "frequency modulated", which are analogs to tremolo and vibrato.

What does that have to do with the present discussion?

Dave Oesterreich

Subject: RE: Vibrato
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 09 Dec 03 - 07:47 PM

I'd think what it would mean would be that with tremolo the note varies in pitch, and in vibrato the note varies in volume.

Whether that is true I'm not sure - but on reflectioin I think that perhaps what I find irritataing in a voice is when the variation is in pitch, and what I like (for example when when I listen to Martin Wyndham-Reed) is more of a a variation in volume.

Subject: RE: Vibrato
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 09 Dec 03 - 08:13 PM

PDQ,
Thanks -

I do respect your opinion and thank you for continuing to respond in a polite manner.

You said: "I will point out that radio is either "amplitude modulated" or "frequency modulated", which are analogs to tremolo and vibrato."

Now it's interesting that you should mention that - I was reading exactly something about that just the other day - which is what caused me to search around my books and end up with the EB definition, and rewrite my "opus" :-). I can't remember where I saw it - it wasn't in an old Mudcat thread was it? It may have been some I stumbled across on the web... while actually looking for something else.... as usual...

Looking - searching...

HAAAAAAA! It was something pointed to from a Mudcat thread!

Sufficient quoted to obtain proper context... but cuts made where the content had nothing to do with "vibrato/tremolo".

http://www-2.cs.cmu.edu/afs/cs/user/phoebe/accordion/accordion-tuning.html


QUOTE

Overall, an accordion may be tuned to standard A=440Hz pitch, or it may be tuned to something else (sometimes 442, 443 or 444 is used to make the accordion stand out a bit from other instruments). However, one or more of the reed sets in the accordion may be intentionally de-tuned relative to the other sets to change the general sound of the accordion.

First of all, the tuning is dependent on the reed arrangement in the accordion. For a full sized professional accordion, there are typically four sets of reeds on the right hand side (a "4-reed accordion"). There are two different reed arrangements commonly used in 4-reed accordions. I'll refer to them as "Reed Arrangement A" and "Reed Arrangement B", defined as follows:

"REED ARRANGEMENT A" has one low octave set of reeds (analogous to 16' voices in an organ), known as "bassoon" reeds. It also has three sets of middle octave reeds (analogous to 8' voices in an organ). Often this arrangement is represented as a circle with two lines and four dots arranged as shown (envision a circle around the object shown below):

                        -------
                         . . .
                        -------
                           .

"REED ARRANGEMENT B" also has a set of bassoon reeds. It only has two sets of middle octave reeds, however. In place of the third set, there is a set of high octave ("piccolo") reeds. These are analogous to 4' voices on an organ. This arrangement is often represented as shown (envision a circle around the object shown below):

                           .
                        -------
                         .   .
                        -------
                           .

[SNIP]

The way that accordions are made to sound different from one another is in the way the remaining set(s) of middle octave reeds are tuned. Typically, they will be tuned a little bit off from the others to get a tremolo effect (a.k.a. a "beat note"). The amount of tremolo (actually the rate of the tremolo) is typically referred to as the amount of "wetness". If all middle octave reed sets are tuned exactly the same (no offset), the accordion is said to have "dry" tuning. In that case, no tremolo is heard.

Another term sometimes used for a wet accordion is to call it a "musette" accordion. However, this term has some ambiguity with it since many accordions have a shift button labeled "musette" even though the accordion may be tuned totally dry. So, to avoid confusion, I'll generally use the term "wet" rather than "musette" to refer to an accordion that has some reed sets intentionally de-tuned.

One of the fundamentals: Tuning is often measured in "cents". 1 cent = 1/100 of a half-step, or a difference in pitch by a factor of 2 raised to the 1/1,200 power = 1.000577789507.

[SNIP]

First of all note that some accordions have set #3 tuned sharp and others have that set tuned flat. "French Musette" tuning is distinguished mainly by the fact that it is much wetter than all other tunings. Furthermore, French Musette tuning typically has set #3 tuned flat by the exact same amount that set #2 is tuned sharp. If you do a Fourier analysis of the result, you'll find that this results in something similar to non-suppressed-carrier amplitude modulation (AM) but with harmonics (for any radio-electronics buffs out there). (The 2-reed "musette" sound, as would be found in Reed Arrangement B, is analogous to suppressed-carrier AM). For non-technocrats, this means that in either case, there is not a "blend" of tremolos but rather a single tremolo being applied to each note.

Another type of tuning that is popular in piano accordions is the following. This tuning has reed set #2 tuned just a little bit sharp and set #3 tuned a lot sharp. The reason for this is so that the player has a choice of a fairly dry sound (by just selecting sets #1 and #2) or a wet sound, by selecting all 3 sets (or selecting #1 and #3). Note that if the amount of offset is not consistent between sets #1-to-#2 vs. #2-to-#3, then you _do_ end up with a "blend" of a tremolos in this tuning.

END QUOTE


All this discussion quoted is clearly referring to "frequency beating" matters - not volume variations....

Combined with the EB definition I quoted previously, perhaps you can see why I feel that we are in different places and I am now feeling somewhat confused...

Robin

Subject: RE: Vibrato
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 09 Dec 03 - 08:16 PM

Uncle_DaveO - Date: 09 Dec 03 - 07:41 PM

PDQ said:

I will point out that radio is either "amplitude modulated" or "frequency modulated", which are analogs to tremolo and vibrato.

What does that have to do with the present discussion?


Wel, the Physics (and the mathematics!) is exactly the same, whether it is audio or radio frequencies.

Robin

Subject: RE: Vibrato
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 09 Dec 03 - 08:54 PM

Yes, PDG,

The Tremulant Organ Stop has been around for ages. The Electric/electronic organs have usually copied the effect exactly, although various manufacturers may do whatever they like - Like Microsoft & Netscape implementing HTML browsers differently from the RFC standards.... :-)

I have been living under the impression ever since I started to muck around with Ham Radio 35 years ago that AM was an analogue of volume, and FM was Tremolo. Early AM radio receiver circuits only worked because you strip off one side (using the detector) around the radio frequency zero crossing point - and then filter out the transmission radio frequency - leaving a pulsing waveform in the audio frequency range. Don't ask me about FM radio... :-) and there are as many ways nowadays with microelectronics to "detect" the audio as there are ways to skin a cat...

I have played harmoniums - which are reed based bellow driven organs (normally operated on a "vacuum" basis rather than a "positive pressure" basis to force the air thru the reeds!) and I have an Indian Harmonium. These have had a "Vox Humana" setting - which imitates the human voice "Vibrato". These have a small secondary bellows in the air feed from the bellows to the reeds which pulses, and gives a "wobble" to the sound.

The reeds of course do not change pitch (to any noticeable degree) with different wind pressures - if they did, the accordion/reed organ would never be able to play in tune with any fixed pitch instrument - all accordion jokes aside! ;-)

So this effect just referred to must be a Volume variation.

Fipple Organ Pipes do change pitch with differing air pressure, although they try to design them to obviate this pitch shift.

And yes, Pipe Organs do have "reed pipe" banks as well as "trumpet" banks .... the "reed pipes" don't have a fipple, they have a "Beater" - and we won't go there.... :-)

Also, incidentally there is also the family of related "Chorus/flanging/phasing" effects - in piano accordions (chorus effect only) and guitar effect pedals... this is a frequency diference based effect.

~~~~~~~

McGrath - I was about to suggest that perhaps what it is that annoys some people with some singers has to do with the difference between volume and frequency changes. You beat me to it.

Diaphram pulsing (geting out of my depth and have conducted no oscillope tests!) is more likely volume changes. Vibrations in the throat/voice box, could affect the pitch at which the vocal chords are vibrating.

I agree, you can have too much of a good thing - and differing anounts suit different styles of music.

Robin

Subject: RE: Vibrato
From: GUEST,pdq
Date: 09 Dec 03 - 09:03 PM

My vote for most excessive vibrato of all time came out a tie:

            Richard Tucker (latter years, as on some Christmas albums)
            Billy Eckstyne...er...come to think about it...this guy is the champ!

Subject: RE: Vibrato
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 10 Dec 03 - 12:18 AM

Hi Again, PDG,

Depends on what book you read...
Finaly dug this one out of a box...

Fundamentals of Musical Acoustics
Arthur H. Benade
2nd, Revised Edition
Dover 1976, 1990.

A Very Respected Scientist.

Index contains several references to "Vibrato" that each definitely refer to PITCH variations. No found reference to changes in Volume only.

EB is not necessarily the best Reference.
Anybody got a Groves handy?

But I need to use 2 different terms in order to differentiate between the 2 distinct effects for my "Opus"!!!

OK, I give up! I know when I'm beat!

Now unless I get more useful references, for the purposes of my "Opus", I'm Humpty Dumpty!

DEFINE: "Vibrato: Variation in Volume"
DEFINE: "Tremolo: Variation in Pitch"

Robin :-)

Subject: RE: Vibrato
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 10 Dec 03 - 05:28 PM

I supose most people have lost interest in this by now... :-)
but pedants just won't give up... :-0

Note the alleged dates for first usage...

From:
Merriam Webster on line
http://www.m-w.com/

Main Entry: vi·bra·to
Pronunciation: vi-'brä-(")tO, vI-
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural -tos
Etymology: Italian, from past participle of vibrare to vibrate, from Latin
Date: circa 1876
: a slightly tremulous effect imparted to vocal or instrumental tone for added warmth and expressiveness by slight and rapid variations in pitch

Main Entry: trem·o·lo
Pronunciation: 'tre-m&-"lO
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural -los
Etymology: Italian, from tremolo tremulous, from Latin tremulus
Date: circa 1801
1 a : the rapid reiteration of a musical tone or of alternating tones to produce a tremulous effect b : vocal vibrato especially when prominent or excessive
2 : a mechanical device in an organ for causing a tremulous effect