Re: Vibrato

[Bobbie Giordano <bobg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

g/mail/postponed-mail/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII

[*Note to Winslow:
  Sorry, I didn't mean to clutter up your personal e-mailbox with this 
  prolix posting.  Oh, noooo, I meant to clutter up everyone's!  >;) ]

On 6 Jun 1995, Winslow Yerxa wrote:

> vibrato is FM (Frequency Modulation or pitch variation) and tremolo is
> AM (Amplitude Modulation or volume variation). But I also quoted from
> the Harvard Dictionary of Music in stating that both terms have been
> used for both practices.

Understood, but the question (making lives difficult) is what is current
accepted terminology, by which everone can know what is being discussed.

For that matter, consider the Mon, June 5, 1995 post, in which FJM said:

> ...that virtually all types of harmonica induced vibrato are going to 
> have some aspects of both amplitude and frequency modulation.  As you 
> waver the pitch in throat vibrato the amplitude is bound to change.  
> You're altering the energy imparted to the note along with the energy 
> required to sound the note.

In finding agreement with this logic, I wonder how we can definitively
call what we create by voice or instrument wholly "vibrato".  And since
pitch variation can be added to AM effects, can these be purely defined
as "tremolos"?  It seems the best we can do is say they are primarily
vibrato or mostly tremolo, that is until both qualities approach equiva-
lence.  Then what do we call that effect?  "Vibramolo?" ;) <silly alert!>

> The human voice naturally modulates a held note. 

I don't think I can agree.  I "developed" a vibrato.  Listening to my son
go through the same effort, with improvement I might add (thank God!), it 
doesn't seem to always be "natural" to me.  And we all know someone (like 
one I have in mind) who couldn't BUY a vibrato with a "pleasing quality".
OTOH, I would agree with an assertion that some people have the "earmarks
of" (: sorry! :) possessing natural vibtratos, however they got it, if that
is what you mean.
  
> As long as it sounds like the voice modulation, it's vibrato. If it 
> goes over into something other than that, then maybe another name is 
> appropriate.

And who determines the terminology - old, expanded meaning or brand new 
classification?  I just like to know what we're talking about here and if
I'm correctly verbalizing when I speak of things.  (Sorry, that's me...
now get those nits outta here! ;)) 

> ...the word tremolo...meanings:
>  - rapid alternation of two notes more than a scale degree apart

And like this one, I don't get it.  A trill is vibrato-like in one context,
but an alternation of two distinct, adjacent notes in another.  And tremolo
is given as the alternation of non-adjacent notes, but also to note amplitude
modulation.  Someone should please make up their mind!  Also, since a trill
can refer to three alternating notes with one as the core, what do we call 
an alternation of three notes with two adjacent and one non-adjacent, as for 
example, D with F and G, with F as the core?  Perhaps a "Trillomo"? :) This 
can make one crazy!  Luckily for me, I mainly play blues and sometimes can 
play some downright undisciplined harp, so I haven't worried much till late 
what this or that gimmick is called.  But now, I'm fascinated and frustrated 
all the time!  Ain't life grand?!


Till next,                              
....Bobbie                                          *Harp Modulated Here*

|\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\  bmg  /\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\/|
"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""" ^^^^^^^ """"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""