Art Scott wrote:

>I had much the same reaction as the others ... the Cello Concerto, while
>undeniably well played, was somehow not compelling (Truls Mork was the
>soloist, by the way).  I had a rather peculiar reaction to it, in fact.
>About halfway through the 1st movement I disconnected from following the
>music and found myself focusing on the soloist's use of vibrato.  ...  the
>soloist's continuous use of vibrato seemed more and more like a pointless,
>amusical tic.  I'd estimate that fully 85% of the notes were wobbled
>throughout or at the note's end, and as the performance wore on I found
>myself wishing somebody would nail his wrist to the fingerboard.

Ouch. Bite your tongue. But I'm glad you stopped lurking because you bring
up a topic dear to my heart.

Vibrato is one of those things that if it is done well, it is not noticed,
and if it is done badly or overdone, it can be so annoying that you'd like
to throw rotten tomatoes. I usually have more problems with over-wobbled
singers than string players, but since I'm a former string player, I know
how difficult it can be to get it right.

>Yes, I know such use of vibrato is standard performance practice for
>most classical and romantic music, but I found myself wondering why it
>is considered appropriate and desirable. ... I looked up "vibrato" in
>Grove, but it wasn't very informative, other than to assert that it adds
>"colouring" to the sound, and that Fritz Kreisler is largely responsible
>for the prevailing fashion in vibrato among string players.

Must have been an old Groves.  Kreisler's vibrato was not admired by all.
Heifetz was more the fellow who brought constant vibrato to his playing,
but he was a walking dictionary of color and effects, could control speed
and shape of his slides and vibrato as nobody before and few since.

>If the idea is to add color to the sound of a vibrating string, fine; but
>when applied always at the same shake rate (ca.  4 cycles/sec, for Mork at
>least)...

Ugh. That is not vibrato. That is mal de mer.

>...to virtually every note I find it results in monotony, not variety.
>Anyway, I would be fascinated to hear a vibrato-free performance of the
>Elgar (or whatever); or at least one where it was used very sparingly, as
>punctuation to key phrase endings.

A good vibrato is very varied.  It is an very clear personal expression
of hte artist.  Vibrato can start slowly and get faster, start a note with
a sizzle of color for emphasis and then slow down, be wide and passionate,
or be a narrow, fast and gentle.  It only sounds crazy and annoying when it
is mechanical, or if the top of the cycle goes over the top of the pitch.
In fact, going over the top of the pitch is one of the major causes of bad
intonation!  The ear registers the highest pitch in a vibrated sound, and
when it goes over, it is BAD.  Your cellist, if he was as you describe, was
not using a very musical vibrato.  No need to throw out the vibrato with
the bath water, though.  How about you try this:

I understand you are a jazz fan (don't ask me how I know)...  there are
jazz singers who use vibrato perfectly.  Mel Torme for one.  He understands
just how it is to be done.  I think his use of vibrato is one of the most
fascinating things about his singing!  It's natural, expressive, and does
not sound mechanical EVER.  Listen also to Dietrich Fischer-Dieskau in his
prime (records from the sixties) and you'll hear what I'd call perfect
vibrato.  Listen to them as carefully as you can, and then tell me if you
still hate vibrato.

It could be that the cellist who annoyed you so much was just not using
it properly.  I can assure you that a cold, pure cello sound for the Elgar
would be totally inappropriate.  It would bore you to tears.  Even Bach
needs a little wiggle here and there, especially on some of the longer
notes.  And how would you make emphasis? The bow is not able to do it
alone.  Have you compared other performances of the Elgar? Say, Yo Yo Ma's
or Jaqueline Du Pre's? I don't think you would be annoyed with the vibrato
they use.  I've always loved Leonard Rose's playing, too.  His vibrato was
expressive and never got in the way.  I haven't heard him play Elgar, but
his Brahms Double with Stern is to swoon.

>Anyhow, what about it? Am I out to lunch obsessing about this, or have
>some of you wished for an occationaly moratorium on the shakes?

Naaa.  Just try to find the folks who can do it to your taste.  It's a
fantastic topic you raised.  One that had me obsessed for five decades.

Some female singers who use vibrato well: Bubbles in her prime.  Flemming,
fer sure!  Elly Ameling.  Arlene Auger.  Ella Fitzgerald!

Mimi Ezust <[log in to unmask]>