Re: [Harp-L] vibrato vs. tremolo 2

[Vern <jevern@xxxxxxx>]

The definitions and examples that I offered are consistent with published authority and have merit because they are neither instrument-dependent nor ambiguous.  Sloppy usage in the past, even if traditional, should not condemn us to sloppy usage in the future.  Without a "single, overarching way of using the terms 'tremolo' and 'vibrato' ", the confusion addressed in this thread continues, our musical language is less clear, and Dekker's question arises again and again.

As an example;  for half of my life, "inflammable" meant "able to burn".  However, clarity won over tradition when we started using "flammable" and discarded "inflammable" entirely.  

Whether or not email etiquette permits us to correct mis-uses of the terms is a separate matter. 

We can have a similar discussion about "glissando" and "portamento".   ;o) 
  
Vern

On Aug 24, 2010, at 4:01 AM, Jonathan Ross wrote:

> Vern writes:
> 
> "I think that it is clear that tremolo is a large, rapid variation in loudness like playing the same short note repeatedly.  Vibrato is a slight, rapid variation of pitch within the same, usually long, note."
> 
> 
> Except that it's obviously not clear.  At this point, several examples of the interchange of these words have been given.  The key for all of them is that the words are instrument and context specific--there is no single, overarching way of using the terms "tremolo" and "vibrato".  So, if the traditional harmonica usage is one way, then we might as well use that way.
> 
> 
> 
> JR Ross
>