Vibrato in pre-baroque era music?

Subscribe to thread

New message

Vibrato in pre-baroque era music?

Date: October 29, 2012

by Matthew Miller

Views: 2126

Is the use of vibrato in pre-baroque era singing really stylistically inappropriate?

I mean, without getting into the pedagogical specifics, singing with at least SOME spin is easier for me (college student with a big voice) than using none at all. My choral director always asks us to "not use vibrato" when we're doing any pre-baroque era choral music. I would completely understand the request if she made it because of the difference in color that the vibrato makes, but she specifically asks us to "not use vibrato" because it's not stylistically appropriate or it's not proper performance practice.

I brought this concern up with my voice teacher, and he explained that we don't actually know how they performed music back then (particularly Renaissance-era Madrigal music) in regards to vibrato. I've learned that vocal pedagogy and technique really started to become developed with the introduction of opera music (late renaissance - early baroque period) , and we know this because of the level of virtuosity that some of the music of that time required.

What other indicators do we have that madrigal singers didn't use vibrato at the time?

Replies (12): Threaded | Chronological

John Howell on October 29, 2012 12:21pm

Hi, Matthew. You will find much disagreement on this question, even among early music specialists, and non-specialists usually have strong opinions based on their own background, training, and experience. But it is always useful to see what writers at the time had to say about any of these technical issues, and for that I heartily recommend the book "The Interpretation of Early Music" by Robert Donnington. (Hopefully it should be in your University music library.) The scholarship is definitely out of date (copyright 1963), but the coverage is in such depth that it is still extremely valuable as a reference, and Donnington differentiates between quotations (from primary sources) and his own interpretation of what they mean.

Here's what he has to say in the Chapter on The Voice, Section 4. The Vibrato: "A confusion of terms exists among singers: vibrato is used by some for a desireable oscillation of INTENSITY (strictly a tremolo) which corresponds, in singing, to the instrumental vibrato; by others for an undesirable oscillation of PITCH (strictly a vibrato).

"An uncontrolled pitch-wobble is a distressing disturbance of technique which can arise from faulty voice-production, and which once it has arisen is appallingly hard to cure. It is condemned by all teachers. Not all teachers, however, realise that the true vocal 'vibrato' is not only an intensity fluctuation but also (though less conspicuously) a pitch fluctuation. The 'wobble' sounds weak, vacillating and out of control. The true vocal 'vibrato' sound wonderfully alive, decisive and under control. It is an essential element of voice-production, as much so in early music as elsewhere." [Donnington, 1963]

Baroque composers, in particular, often included tables of ornaments with their published works, and one needs to be aware that vibrato is often shown (as far as we can tell given the challenges of translation) along with various kinds of trills, meaning that it was considered a type of trill and therefore probably not to be used continuously.

But much of what we DO know comes from writings about instrumental technique, and almost all of those writings differentiate between "tremolo" and "vibrato" (although the terminology is by no means clear or consistent):

"There is geat confusion of terms here. But the clearest terminology is to reserve the word tremolo for a fluctuation of intensity, often but not necessarily amounting to a reiteration of the note; and the word vibrato for a fluctuation of pitch not amounting to a change of note." [Donnington, 1963] And this is a CRUCIAL statement and is amply discussed in the primary source writings on instrumental technique:

"The TRILL [here meaning tremolo] is by a beating in the Throat … rather the shaking of the Ovula or Pallate on the Trhroat, in one sound upon a Note … The TRILL, or SHAKE of the Voice, being the most usual Grace, is made in CLOSES, CADENCES, and other places, where by a long note an EXCLAMATION or PASSION is expressed, there the Trill is made in the latter part of any such Note; but most usually upon binding Notes in CADENCES and CLOSES, and on that Note that precedes the closing Note." [John Playford, Introd., Londeon, 1654, cited from ed. of 1674 , on Caccini's Preface, "Nuove Musiche," Florence, 1602] This is what today we call a TRILLO, an ornamental tremolo called for specifically by Monteverdi (very explicitly in the score to "L'Orfeo") and often referred to or described, an ornament that is not used today except by early music specialists.

Donnington also points out that "The clavichord has a species of vibrato which if intensified produces a genuine tremolo. The general names for this technique are TREMOLO (It.), BALANCEMENT (Fr.), and BEBUNG (Ger.).

Regarding a pitch vibrato, we have a surprising amount of information:

"From the middle of the baroque period until the generation of Kreisler [violinist Fritz Kreisler, who in the early 20th century advocated and used continuous vibrato] whether the instrumental vibrato should be used (in the modern way) more or less continuously as a means of enlivening the tone, or intermittently as a specific ornament. But that it was used throughout the baroque period, there can be no doubt at all; nor have we any reason to supposed that it was then a novelty. Both Martin Agricola ("Musica Instrumentalis Deudsch," 1545) and Sylvestro Ganassi ("Regola Rubertina, 1542) mention a "trembling" of the fingers which is almost certainly vibrato." [Donnington, 1963]

"The tone of the violin is most ravishing when the players sweeten it by certain tremblings [here meaning vibrato] which delight the mind." [M. Mersenne, "Harmonie Universell, Paris, 1636-37]

And here is a clear description of string vibrato as a TWO-FINGER ornament--a kind of trill: "Close-shake is that when we shake the Finger as close and near the sounding Note as possible may be, touching the String with the Shaking finger so softly and nicely that it make no variation of tone. This may be used where no other Grace is concerned." [John Plaford, "Introduction," London, 1654; and his table of ornaments illustrates this on the note A illustrated as a kind of trill with both the lower and upper note contained within the space of the note A!!!]

"Two fingers are used for this form of vibrato. By 'no variation of tone' Simpson evidently means (as an American though not an English writer would now) 'no change of note [or pitch].' There is, however, a distinct fluctuation of pitch, and the result is a vibrato rather more prominent than usual." [Donnigton, 1963]

There are similar descriptions quoted from Jean Rousseau, "Traité de la Viole," Paris, 1687; from Marin Marais, "Pièces de viole," Paris, 1696 (who gives the names "Pincé ou Flattement" for the two-finger vibrato and "Plainte" for the one-finger vibrato; from Geminiani, "Art of Playing on the Violin," London, 1751; Leopold Mozart, "Violinschule," Augsburg, 1756; and others up through Carl Flesch, "The Art of Violin Playing," Boston, 1924. This makes it clear that the "Pincé" was used on stringed instruments both with and without frets on the fingerboard (and personal experience shows that it works quite well on both), while the equivalent for woodwind instruments is the "Flattement" in which waving the finger over an open hole LOWERS the pitch less than a halfstep rather than RAISING it less than a halfstep. [My comments]

So while your voice teacher is correct that we do not have any recordings showing exactly what singers (or instrumentalists) actually DID, it is not by any means true that we have no information from the time period in question! And yes, it is very much a matter both of stylistic practice and of performance practice.

So what's the bottom line? Here's my take, and others are free to disagree. We are talking about a time span of three centuries during which equal temperament did not exist in practice and temperaments were not used by anyone except keyboard players, although equal temperament was written about by theorists. (Bach's "Wohltempierte Clavier" meant WELL tempered, not EQUAL tempered!!) Which means that their ears were MUCH more attuned to singing or playing in perfect intervals (defined as intervals in the small whole-number ratios in which we find them in the naturally-occurring harmonic series). And perfect intervals can NOT be produced by either singers or instrumentalists if a vibrato is used that varies the pitch so much as to make a clear pitch center inaudible. Indeed, one of the WORST sounds I have ever hears was a recording by the "Metropolitan Opera Madriagl Singers" (talk about an oxymoron!!!) with rampant vibratos and no sense of pitch centers or pure intervals even in the same TOWN!!!!

So the bottom line (in my experience) is that YES, a natural, beautiful vibrato is both desirable and entirely appropriate for beautiful singing, but that if it obscures or makes it difficult to identify a pitch center it is too much and no longer acceptable. (I find the Metropolitan Opera broadcasts very difficult to listen to because the vibratos call attention to themselves and distract attention from the music!) And there is no question in my mind at all that REDUCING the amount of vibrato from the modern standard makes it possible for both singers and instrumentalists to have at least a fighting chance of really really in tune with pure intervals, but eliminating it entirely is probably not particularly authentic performance practice. So I would agree with your choral director if your ensemble's natural modern vibrato gets in the way of pure intonation, but not necessarily as a matter of authentic performance practice.

Just don't forget that you can and will learn from EVERYONE, even if what you learn is that you don't LIKE a particular approach to music or to singing!!!

All the best,

John

Applauded by an audience of 2

Brent Daniels on October 29, 2012 4:09pm

While I'm not as smart as John is, obviously, I'll keep my answer much shorter. It boils down to this for me...

1. Most human voices have a "natural vibrato" while singing (vibrato = shimmer, spin, oscillation, fluctuation, etc... but NOT wobble).

2. Asking a singer to remove that from their voice is asking them to do something unnatural.

3. Singers should be free to sing as themselves, rather than manipulating their voice to try to fit a mold.

A shrewd director will, through gesture and voice placement, be able to manipulate a sound of a choir without asking someone to change their voice.

So I personally never ask for a straight tone. It is very difficult to do correctly and in my opinion, not worth the effort. I personally prefer the sound of a natural vocal production with a healthy, musical vibrato anyway.

Applauded by an audience of 2

John Howell on October 29, 2012 6:12pm

Hi, Brent, and thanks for your thoughts. I would agree with your first point with modifications: "Most human voices IN OUR CULTURE WITH OUR CONVENTIONAL VOICE TRAINING have a 'natural vibrato' ..." And you are correct to say "most," because a single exception disproves the word "all," and I am that exception. Even with good voice teaching from high school on, I have no "natural" vibrato and had to learn to make one. So in regard to your second point, using vibrato for ME is something "unnatural."

But in a wider context of both different musical genres within our own culture (only a small percentage are concerned with or interested in an operatic career, after all) and different musical styles worldwide, our concepts of a "natural" or "beautiful" vocal tone simply do not hold water. It is ONE of many possible vocal approaches, but since we live in our own culture we tend to accept it as received wisdom and not to question it.

Regarding your point 3, singers whould certainly be free to sing as themselves, but some will always have more flexibility and control than others, and be able to meet the demands of different musical styles and genres better than others. And since the orignal question was in regard to pre-baroque music (which I expanded somewhat to include baroque since stylistically it was a period of new sounds and new stylistic demands), it's entirely possible that those singers who can ONLY sing in one way with one sound should not be asked to sing renaissance music (or jazz, or traditional folk, or Appalachian/Bluegrass traditional, or any other genre or style in which an operatic sound is out of place). But the ability to match different styles can be a definite professional advantage, as can the ability to sing in only one style but to do it to perfection. Every singer and every voice is different, but it should come as no surprise that SOME musical styles demand a different approach to vibrato and other aspects of tone production.

But if you are involved in college choral music (you have not posted a ChoralNet Profile so I can't tell), you know that we are dealing with STUDENTS who by definition do not often have "finished" voices, and I would agree completely that it may be better not to ask them to do anything that conflicts with what their voice teachers are working on at the moment. And of course your own personal taste in vocal sound should determine what you look for and how you go about achieving it.

All hte best,

John

Applauded by an audience of 1

Brent Daniels on October 31, 2012 10:13am

If I ever came across a singer in my choir who didn't have any semblance of vibrato, I would not require them to learn how to do it. My number 1 priority with singers is to allow them to be themselves. It isn't about who can do this and who can do that and who can do everything for me. That is why I put such an emphasis on voice placement and seating arrangement. Some voices simply cannot sit next to each other and be effective, but I've yet to find a singer that I couldn't place effectively in a section.

"...some will always have more flexibility and control than others, and be able to meet the demands of different musical styles and genres better than others."

This is of course true. That is why repertoire selection is so important. As conductors, we all have different priorities. Some directors strive for performance practice and authenticity above all others. Those directors require singers that can sing the music of Dufay, Byrd, Mozart, Brahms, and Moses Hogan at will without much effort in changing style. Ironically, those five composers have all been sung by my choir within the last two months or so, and they have done so successfully without having to manipulate the core tone that they make.

If singers are musical, have open, receptive ears, and have (or are willing to learn) an understanding of how the music "goes," then usually everything is fine. As far as priorities go, mine is to get my singers to understand what they are singing, why they are singing it, and how it will impact themselves and others. Variations in vocal production is usually a byproduct of this understanding. It may be overly simplistic, but this "reverse" approach to teaching and performing music has been successful for me so far.

Richard Allen Roe on October 29, 2012 5:09pm

John's answer is very comprehensive. I wonder if you really mean vibrato, or if you are referring to "wobble." Wobble is destructive to choral music of any era. I have a rule, which is when two parts are within a step of each other, then there should be no vibrato. This really helps in renaissance and baroque music where there are so many suspensions and resolutions that are critical to the structural integrity of presentation. But I also never ask for "straight tone." It is too loaded of a term. I will say, "non-vibrato," instead of "straight tone". I will also say, "Sopranos, there's too much vibrato on that note," when I really mean "wobble." Seems impolite to me. But sometimes, it just seems more appropriate to call a skunk, "a skunk."

Applauded by an audience of 2

John Howell on October 29, 2012 7:54pm

Richard: It's possible to define "wobble" in terms of both pitch change and speed, and speed might actually be more what we perceive. It's a basic truism in sensory psychology that things at a speed of around 7 per second or faster are perceived as being continuous, while things slower than 7 per second are perceived as individual pulsations. (This was exploited in the movie "The Andromeda Strain," in which a light flashing at a certain rate set off petit mal or grand mal epileptic attacks in the woman scientist, but I noted when I first saw it that the actual frequency of the light in the movie was FASTER than 7 per second since they seemed to be aware of the danger of setting off such attacks in members of their audience!)

But we certainly do perceive a "vibrato" of less than 7 hz as a pulsation or "wobble," even if it is acceptable in terms of pitch variation. (Much the same is true of stringed instrument vibrato, and a vibrato that is too slow AND too wide is perceived as a distortion rather than a beautification of the tone, for both violinists and singers.)

All the best,

John

Applauded by an audience of 2

Kentaro (Ken-P) Sato on October 29, 2012 10:29pm

John. Speaking from my experience in the orchestral library recording/productions, it is very common to have vibrato of less than 7Hz/s (It could go down near 3Hz/s in occasion, for example, Oboe). In fact, 7Hz/s is too fast for most of the time, and for most of the instruments. When I did a research at my university, I did find that appropriate and comfortable vibrato varies from instruments to instruments, and from dynamics to dynamics. Even the introduction time and its manner of vibrato seem to affect the appropriate vibratos. Of course, how much pitch and volume change is important.

But I think what Richard means was simply too much "pitch variation', or too wide.

Applauded by an audience of 1

John Howell on October 31, 2012 11:28am

Kentaro: You may very well be correct. My "7 per second" is a generic observation from sensory psychology (which I studied 40 or 50 years ago!), and not specifically directed toward anything specific like vibrato. And I certainly have to agree that the amount of vibrato as well as the mechanism and sound of vibrato varies from one instrument to another. (Although many concert cellists use a vibrato that is just as fast as or even faster than that of a violinist, so it isn't a linear change.)

But we can probably agree that there IS a point at which a slow vibrato starts to be perceived as individual pulsations (which I hear entirely too often on the Metropolitan Opera broadcasts). Determining that point would require some controlled experimentation.

All the best,

John

Richard Allen Roe on October 30, 2012 5:55am

John,I think it is much simpler than that. Vibrato is a naturally occuring feature. I know you don't have it, and had to learn it, but in most cases, it is a part of proper singing. Wobble is unnatural, caused mostly by tension, or improper support of the singing mechanism. It is easy to spot, and is mostly uncontrollable. It is a technical flaw. Simple.

Applauded by an audience of 1

Eric S Betthauser on October 30, 2012 7:59am

Matthew,

I've spent time as a college choir singer, a middle-and high-school director, a singer in a professional early-music vocal ensemble, and a long-time Early-music Geek. Here are some practical considerations:

1. Yes, vibrato is usually a characteristic of trained singers in the Western tradition

2. Some ensembles--even celebrated ones--have used consistent vibrato in performing Medieval and Renaissance vocal music. Prime example: Pro Cantione Antiqua.

3. A well-trained ensemble singer can healthily use vibrato as an ornament--increasing or decreasing it with the dynamic level and the shape of the phrase. However, I would NEVER ASK A SINGER TO DO THIS IF IT WERE PAINFUL.

4. In my experience--and many scholars smarter than I (e.g., Ross Duffin, Simon Carrington, Alexander Blachly) agree--using minimal vibrato in Medieval and Renaissance music keeps the polyphony clearer and provides a more satisfying aesthetic experience.

One related point is that, thankfully, ensembles have gotten into the habit of singing with a full, rich sound, rather than a thin, subdued tone. Peter Philips of the Tallis Scholars is adament about wanting singers who use a full-throated tone. In their performances, you will hear this, as well as SOME vibrato.

Applauded by an audience of 1

Matthew Miller on October 30, 2012 11:16am

Maintaining clarity of polyphony is definitely something to consider & that more satisfying aesthetic experience is the name of the game here, so that's definitely a good point.

So, you're saying that a proper and natural vibrato used in moderation can be a good thing while singing Medieval and Renaissance music. I can say I definitely agree with this.

What do you mean by full-throated tone?

Matthew Miller on October 30, 2012 11:10am

So many wonderful answers!

John, your first answer is really comprehensive & seems to begin to get to the core of what we're looking for; I mean, there isn't any better resource for answers to this question than the composers of the music in question.

I feel as though I could stand to clarify a bit - I'm definitely not talking about "wobble." What I'm referring to I've most often heard referred to as a "spin" or "vibrancy" or even "buoyancy" in the tone. It's a vibrato that comes naturally from an unobstructed and properly supported voice.

The proper utilization of vibrato as I have come to learn in my short time as a classical singer revolves around maintaining the center of the pitch. I find it infinitely easier to keep from going sharp/flat and to maintain the exact center of the pitch if I have a healthy amount of spin in my tone. From what I've heard/seen/learned, the presence of a vibrato is really the only way to get upper partials to come out and really ring & project the tone.

Having said all of that, my question really revolved more around that "spin" in the tone, rather than a wobble. In my opinion, a wobble is never a desirable sound from any singer in any situation.

Either way, I feel very strongly for John's point about temperament and striving for those actually perfect intervals. However, my response to that is that in a choral setting I have, on many occasions, heard overtones as a result of a very finely tuned chord coming from a large group of mostly classically trained Western singers (see: lots of GOOD vibrato). Overtones that actually made an 8 part chord sound like a 10 or 12 part chord with the extra parts coming from random points in the room. The question at that point, then, would have to be that if a nice "spin" vibrato doesn't prevent overtones from being produced as a result of a finely tuned chord in a choral setting, then why should it be excluded in hope of achieving more perfect intervals?

I do understand the comparison between what audiences would be listening for back then compared to what we're used to hearing now & that our ears less finicky when listening for perfect intervals because of the temperament we're used to hearing, though, and definitely agree with you, John.

You must log in or register to be able to reply to this message.

Join Today!

Most recent activity

Choral discussions: Advice for a new teacher? (4)
Legal issues: Board of Directors/Conflict of Interest
Program administration/curriculum: How do I convince my superintendent... (18)
Program administration/curriculum: Please help! Program and scheduling conflicts! (1)
Repertoire questions and discussions: SA and SSA songs on the theme of Harvest Time and Thanksgiving (9)
Repertoire questions and discussions: Repertoire suggestions for Evensong (7)
Program administration/curriculum: What to do with 4 weeks and no concerts left in high school? (24)
Program administration/curriculum: Can "Non-auditioned" still have a screening process for members? (4)
Choral discussions: Sight Reading in Middle School...Is It Possible? (22)
Repertoire questions and discussions: Serious Food Songs (15)