Ian, you’re absolutely right that I misspoke on the definitions, and for this I offer my apologies. Your original definition for vibrato is right on. What I meant to comment on was your definition of tremolo as a “fluctuation of intensity or dynamics.” The rapid reiteration of a single note or the very rapid alternation between two notes does not strike me as something I would call a “volume shake.” In singing, tremolo is differentiated from vibrato by a less regular and more rapid modulation of pitch (Schultz-Coulon and Battner 1981). In this way, “tremolo” in a singer is a kind of inexpert vibrato and it is considered a vocal fault. The reason the term is so seldom used for the voice is that it is easier and more informative to describe it as an irregular vibrato that is too-fast – which is exactly how most vocalists would describe it. Usually this kind of vibrato is caused by some residual inhibiting tension in the throat musculature. It’s important to note that musical terminology is not the same for all instruments. There really is no vocal equivalent to the string tremolo because the voice instrument just doesn’t work that way.
As to whether I am arguing ad hominem (that’s “by attack on a person’s character rather than by an answer to his contentions” for the Latin-impaired)… I am truly sorry if you feel that way, but I don’t think that’s necessarily what I’ve been doing. What I have done is present voluminous amounts of hard scientific information and briefly comment after the fact on your apparent unwillingness to concede that your first take on the subject may have been mistaken. This is not a subject in which it is possible to “agree to disagree” – one is either right or wrong.
Let me give you an example of what I’m talking about: Suppose I, a singer, had been writing an SD Mailbag answer to someone who asked: “what’s the deal with string players shaking their left hand all the time while they’re playing?” Part of my answer, based on my singer’s conception of vibrato, might have been that a skilled string player’s vibrato is constant in both frequency and amplitude at all times. Further, let us suppose that several points in my writing on string vibrato were equally flawed due to my approach from a singer’s perspective (I might say, for example, that string players seem to develop vibrato over the course of training without ever working specifically on it, etc., etc., etc.). Then a day or so later… you, an experienced string player, post a detailed response pointing out my many mistakes, including the fact that skilled string players consciously manipulate the rate and extent of vibrato all the time for reasons of style, expression, tuning and harmonic function. I might be surprised to find out that string vibrato didn’t work the same way or under the same set of principles as voice vibrato, and I’d proceed straightaway to a string professor or other professional to clear this up. My next course of action upon discovering my mistake would be to contact the SD powers-that-be about running a follow-up to the original article with the correct information. On the contrary, not only have you done nothing of the kind, but you have rejoined with sarcastic remarks (i.e., your offer of Saskatchewan ocean frontage, your remark to Kara about trill versus vibrato, etc.) and have intimated that singers don’t know correct musical terminology nor how their instruments really work. Again, I’m sorry if this colored the tone of my responses… but put yourself in my shoes. It isn’t a coincidence that none of the singers who have responded agree with you.
Getting back to the original article, your points on the voice were these:
Point: Historically, singers began using vibrato to imitate strings which were already using vibrato at that time.
My response: Vibrato is a natural phenomenon of the relaxed singing voice, and all mature voices have a tendency towards some fluctuation in the phonation frequency of sustained notes. Therefore, it is highly unlikely that singers started this practice by copying string players. In fact, it is generally accepted that instrumental vibrato evolved in an attempt to imitate the singing voice. For example, it is not a coincidence that (changeable) string vibrato rates just happen to be the same as (unchangeable) vocal vibrato rates. Since the prominence of vocal vibrato increases with volume, it is not coincidental that instrumental vibrato began to be used at a time when volume rates increased, nor that instrumental vibrato has increased in rate and extent as singing has become louder over the years. Furthermore, the idea of vibrating the pitch of a sustained tone had to come from somewhere. It is infinitely more likely that the idea came from an instrument that naturally displays this phenomenon (the voice) rather than one for which vibrato is not natural (strings). All the above has been extensively documented and supported.
Point: Vocal vibrato is not a fluctuation in frequency (pitch shake), but a fluctuation in amplitude (volume shake).
My response: Vocal vibrato has both fluctuation in pitch and intensity. However, pitch fluctuation is the important defining element. Indeed, the volume fluctuation in vibrato singing is an acoustic by-product of the pitch fluctuation. All the above in this point has been extensively documented and supported.
Point: Vibrato was once used by singers to acoustically differentiate the vocal sound from the sound of the instruments.
My response: There is no evidence that this is now or has ever been the case. In fact, there are many acoustic reasons why the voice is perceived as distinct from the orchestra. Changing vowels and consonants are definitely important in this respect, as is the acoustic phenomenon where an area of high acoustic energy in the trained voice coincides with a relatively weak area in the orchestral sound. I have described this last effect in some detail.
Point: “Volume shake” is used by singers for effect as a stylistic device.
My response: As demonstrated above, it is a pitch shake, not a volume shake. If you’re talking about vibrato (pitch shake)… for pop singers, this is true. For classical singers, vibrato is an integral part of the tone.
Point: Use of vibrato by singers obscures the pitch.
My response: Not true. Listeners have no trouble accurately assigning pitch to vibrato tones according to the logarithmic average of the pitch fluctuations. Further, vibrato tones are much easier to tune. Both these points were extensively supported with scientific evidence.
These points lead directly to the question of whether vibrato is conscious of unconscious, which we have been discussing. There are, as I mentioned earlier, two distinct kinds of vocal vibrato. A pop vibrato is consciously produced and controlled in terms of rate and extent via manipulation of the jaw, laryngeal position and/or airflow. A classical (“true”) vibrato, on the other hand, is present at all times and is not consciously produced or controlled by the classical singer in terms of rate and extent, except that it can be eliminated with conscious effort. This is because the true vibrato is an innate neurological/muscular phenomenon of the voice instrument. You have, up to now, refused to concede on this point even though I have conclusively and exhaustively debunked every argument you have made for a consciously controlled vibrato. Even now, after I have provided mountains of information, you are still refusing to concede that you might have been mistaken about the voice in your article. Rather than do this, it seems to me that you’re to getting yourself out of the hole you dug by deciding to take offense and run away from the discussion. Frankly, I don’t understand why I have to prove this. I’m a singer. You’re not. The fact that everyone seems to be agreeing with me should tell you something.
I’m not trying to be mean here, nor was I previously. But, Ian, it seems to me that the best thing to do when someone (or several ones) with greater authority on a subj