It’s amazing to me the backseat driving that goes on here with artists. He can’t have wanted to raise the guitar and hear that sound as part of his art? He couldn’t have felt that was going to be a better way?
If it makes you feel better about something, I guess.
All three of those guys are moving around. Moving their bodies and their instruments.
The guitar player moves his instrument more. But he’s obviously just following the moves of the other guys.
Stuff like this happens in videos. Players think they need to move around to keep it interesting.
The OP is asking for ideas. Folks are offering some. No one is taking a stand. And no one is bringing passive-aggressive shade to the discussion. Except you.
I’m sure you’ve hit the nail on the head – “keeping himself honest” – I can’t think of a better way to say it.
Nitpick: if the effect is to change the pitch then it’s always *vibrato *(you electric guitarists have something of a trap to fall in with the misnamed “tremolo arm”).
::shakes fist at Leo Fender:: Why did you have to name it a tremolo arm, Leo?!?!
Serious question: so, you are playing an acoustic. You hit a chord, and then, holding the chord, you use your strum hand to pick up the guitar by the endpeg, and waggle the guitar in front of you, so the sound hole rotates a bit towards the listeners, then a bit away. Toward, then away, etc. To the audience, it introduces a bit of warble into the sound.
What is that? Is that a change in pitch because there is a bit of Doppler Effect going on? So Vibrato.
Or a volume change because you are showing more soundhole (heh) then less? So Tremolo?
???
Changing the pitch, that’s vibrato. Tremolo is the rapid repetition of a note.
But I see what you are saying – if your waggles occlude and then open the soundhole the volume pops up and down (creating a series of similarly pitched notes) I suppose that it would be correct to say tremolo, but I’ve just tried it (I’m not an expert guitar waggler) and (to me, on my cheap “beach” guitar) the most obvious effect is a change of pitch. Maybe a bit of both.
We need a new word.
Waggle-otto?
Warblifying?
Trying to get laid by looking all smooth and shit?
When I see most players do it, I am assuming option 3.
Tremolo has two related meanings: One is the above, and the other is amplitude modulation (so, like vibrato, but instead of changing the pitch of the note, you’re changing the volume.) That said, I’m not aware of a word that covers both vibrato and tremolo together, which is what you get in something like a Leslie speaker or your classical organ tremulants.
Vi-bremolo!!
My god, we’re brilliant!!
;):smack:
ETA: two other things -
Why, I guess that’s why they call you “WordMan”! Actually, I do kind of like “vibremolo.”
9 out of 10 dentists prefer “vibremalo” over “trembrato”.
And dentist #10 plays the bassoon, so he can’t be trusted to know a good-sounding name when he hears one. 
Here’s the Wiki link to Leslies: Leslie speaker - Wikipedia
In the section titled Sound Generation, it says:
[QUOTE=Wikipedia]
The Leslie is specifically designed, via reproduction of the Doppler effect, to alter or modify sound. As the sound source is rotated around a specific pivot point, it produces **tremolo **(the modulation of amplitude) and a variation in pitch. This produces a sequence of frequency modulated sidebands.[46] To stop a Leslie’s rotor, a special brake circuit was added to the Leslie motor controls, that incorporated an electronic relay by producing a half-wave of direct current.[47]
Much of the Leslie’s unique tone is due to the fact that the system is at least partially enclosed, whereby linear louvres along the sides and front of the unit can vent the sound from within the box after the sound has bounced around inside, mellowing it.[48] The crossover is deliberately set to 800 Hz to give the optimum balance between the horn and the drum, and is considered an integral part of the speaker.[33] The tone is also affected by the wood used. Tone differences, due to cost cutting using particle board for speaker and rotor shelves instead of the previous plywood, are evident in the Leslie’s sound. The thinner ply of the top of the cabinet adds a certain resonance as well. Like an acoustic instrument, a Leslie’s tone is uniquely defined by its cabinet design and construction, the amplifier, crossover and speakers used, and the motors — not merely by the spinning of rotors.[49]
[/QUOTE]
[Bolding mine]
So the setting on the speaker (described earlier in the Wiki entry) is Tremolo. And in this section it leads with the Doppler effect producing Tremolo…but then they sneak in a “variation in pitch.”
Damn - it’s been Vibremolo the entire time and they’ve been keeping it from us!!!
And… does it work ?
While I would love to report “yes,” I have never been the sensitive singer/songwriter type*, or the virtuoso acoustic dude who ends his composition with a warbly flourish.
I was more the type who would play the raucous gig and realize I was being eyed by a gal at the bar who was as likely to either pass out, or toss me over her shoulder, Honky Tonk style in between sets.
*like this guy: Dan Hill, Sometimes When We Touch. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7jPMXzxvdL8 I have seen him play it on guitar. I can totally see him warblifying his guitar at the end and hooking up with some crunchy-type gal. More power to 'em, but not my thing.
You made beer come out of my nose. 
Hey, everybody! Free beer!
I have never held my acoustic guitar away from my body for more sustain. That’s a new one on me.
I have done so with my electric (Fender Squire Protone, fat strat with Seymour Duncan pickups). On that, I can get really great feedback sustain, and holding by the neck and body lets me tilt the body to control it. I also use the “tremolo” to slacken the strings to dampen the feedback with a pitch bend. Or use the volume knob.
I think I am the only one who cares which I choose 
Sent from my SM-G900I using Tapatalk
I don’t know a lot of folks who waggle their acoustics. Again, virtuoso douchebag territory. There is an amazing player I love, Eric Skye, who does it and totally pulls it off, but it isn’t common. He does acoustic versions of the tracks off Miles Davis’ Kind of Blue that are beautiful.
As for your electric - okay, do you think you get more feedback because you are holding the guitar away from your body, or because the act of holding it away from your body positions the guitar to feed back better? I know that Ted Twit-Boy Nugent always did sound checks with his hollow Byrdland, marking out the spots where the physics of the room, amp locations vs. guitar, etc., led to the different types of feedback he wanted. So when he wanted to go huge, he would walk over to one of those spots.
::ahem:: just realized we hadn’t from the OP in a bit. Superdude, are you getting what you were looking for?
My 2 cents: I suspect that moving the guitar body away from your body allows more feedback because the surface area that the sound can get to on the guitar is quite a bit larger. More sound to body == more vibrations getting to the pups which == feedback.
I once played a show and my backup guitar had a problem (which, for the life of me I cannot remember the details of) and I used another guitarists guitar as a backup. It was a Washburn and insanely light. I popped a string on my main guitar and picked up the Washburn, which I foolishly didn’t check during the sound check. I plugged in the Washburn and it was pure feedback. I couldn’t get it to stop feeding back no matter what I did. It was insane.
Slee