RE: [Harp-L] A vibrato related question

["MLeFree" <mlefree@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Alexander Savelyev writes:
> Hi Michelle,
>
> Big thanks for your elucidative reply. And sorry if I sounded a little
> strict. Yes I see that Ronnie confirmed that it was the diaphragm
> vibrato. I do accept that reply and think that the person who does
> things knows better what he or she is doing.

I figured that, rather than imposing my own "bent" on the subject, I might
as well ask Ronnie.

> On the other hand, people often do confuse things when describing some
> processes that take place. For instance, there's no pure diaphragm
> breathing or upper-lung (chest/rib) breathing but a mixed one with
> different share or portions of each with one type dominating all the
> time or at the time a specified technique is used or applied. Vibrato
> and  bending are on the top of the list of harmonica technique where
> confusion occurs. And confusion or contradition is a purely subjective
> matter as there's no standard terminology and scientifically described
> and proven processes. So, if one bends the note on a harmonica in one
> way putting the accent on something that the other person rejects, then
> there's contradictory perception of the processes and therefore conflict
> of opinions. And what is more interesting everyone would be right as own
> method works and gives desired results.

Yes, yes...

> Proceeding from the above I'd like to emphasize the following:
>
> 1. Whatever technique is used, the mostly engaged in the process (sound
> effect, etc.) action and resource of that action (hand, tongue, lips,
> etc.) can at least theoretically be considered the most responsible for
> the whole ultimate sound effect. Say, in case of vibrato, "vibrato" is a
> cumulative term describing the whole process and result, but additional
> terminology as "bent" vibrato, "throat" vibrato, "diaphragm" vibrato,
> "lips" vibrato, "tongue" vibrato - just give more specifics in terms of
> what exactly influences the sound. No doubt, when doing throat vibrato
> one's tongue can participate in the process, including lips, soft
> palate, throat, etc., but the "throat" vibrato was named as such because
> contractions in the throat do 80% of job. And we call this or that type
> of a harmonica techniqe usually sticking to the most dominating action
> or its origin (tongue, diaphragm, etc.).

Maybe you or even Ronnie could record several passes at the vibrato
technique using only one effect at a time? That might help isolate the
contribution of each of the underlying techniques.

> 2. Due to personal perceptions people describe processes as they
> themselves see them without generalizations. It means that a person
> focuses on something that he or she believes is crucial but which in
> reality is not always responsible for more that 50% of the result.

Absolutely. In my case, I know that I'm constantly working on my vibrato
technique(s) and that for a while I've been trying to improve my
diaphragmatic vibrato in particular. So I agree that I probably am thinking
"diaphragm-centric." On the other hand, I am a life-long whistler, and a
fairly decent one at that, so I have done a lot of tongue vibrato with my
whistling. I easily transferred that to my harping. But, I haven't achieved
what I'd like to in terms of the "depth" of my tongue vibrato, and that
agrees with the advice I've received from a number of more experienced
harpers. They've suggested that I scuttle my tongue vibrato and concentrate
on my diaphragmatic one.

> MY OPINION
> Though I am sure Ronnie is right in his descriptions, etc., I still
> have a reservation regarding the name of the type of vibrato used
> at/since 1:55 on the video clip discussed. Yes, as it was said above,
> one sound effect can combine several techniques and actions, but I
> believe it is legitimate to call a certain type of technique after the
> action or it's origin, which is/are responsible for more than 50% of the
> result. And in my opinion, when we hear the result at 1:55, the
> diaphragm vibrato gets less than 50%  of it's share in the whole
> process. And the tongue motion is mostly responsible for the aggregated
> result thereof.

I don't want to simply restate my opinion or Ronnie's, for that matter. I do
believe that, in order to get that deep and sophisticated of a vibrato,
several techniques are in play. Which is dominant I can't say, since I am
not able to reporduce Ronnie's sound myself.

> *I can agree that participation of the diaphragm in the process gives
> more emotions, etc., but I doubt it can give contractions of such
> freaquency or even if yes, the leading role would be after the tongue
> motions. If it's not true then Ronnie broke my stereoptypes which I
> don't like to keep in my head anyway:)

Yup. That's pretty fast movement for ~my~ diaphragm, but I atribute it to
lack of development and practice more than an innnate inability to anyone's
particualr diaphragm to move that fast. Actually, I can move mine that fast,
but not with the amplitude to reproduce what Ronnie is doing. That's one
reason why I agree that several effects are combined.

> ** Such a vibrato requires brisk and stable airflow which can be
> reached by involving one's diaphragm in breathing process constantly
> focusing on the air pressure in a agiven direction, but is it possible
> to do two things at once - (1) provide for a massive air flow to add
> more emotions and (2) make vibrations at the freaqancy heard in the
> clip?

I'm not sure I'm following what you are saying about adding more emotions...

> So, my final opnion is that it was a tongue vibrato, regardless of some
> bending and diaphragm applied and regardless of one's perception. Though
> my point has weak grounds as there's no scientific proof or explanation
> of the technique - which basically means that everyone of us is right
> whatever we say.
>
>
> P.S. Michelle, I don't see this exchange of ideas as a competition or
> so, I really want to explore and open new directions for group
> discussion. So, thank you for bringing this topic to everyone's
> attention.  And I'll be glad to get more opinions on this issue.

Absolutely! I wish harp-l'ers would discuss actual playing techniques more
often.

And, Alex, I hope you are going to SPAH, because I'd like to meet you and
talk more about this and other methodology-related stuff. You have a
terrific command of the English language as well as harmonicology, the
former of which is particularly impressive since, if I'm not mistaken,
English is not your first language... The two together add up to a fella I'd
like to meet!  8^)

BTW, I see Ronnie posted his reply earlier. I get the digest so I didn't
realize that or I would have let him do his own talking.

Thanks, Alex,

Michelle

[clipped previous messages]