Sax on the Web Forum banner

vibrato oscillates below the pitch above or both?

  • Below the pitch only

    Votes: 28 44.4%
  • Below and above the pitch

    Votes: 30 47.6%
  • Above the pitch

    Votes: 2 3.2%
  • Something else

    Votes: 3 4.8%

Jaw vibrato: where is the "average" pitch?

11K views 47 replies 29 participants last post by  Jazzaferri 
#1 · (Edited)
I was reading the Larry Teal book, and he appears to imply that vibrato oscillates down, back up above the pitch and down again, so that the "basic" or "average" pitch is in the middle of the waveform.

I suppose this would work well for a singer, but I'm sure most saxophone players oscillate down from the pitch then back up to it, rarely going above the starting pitch.

You would think that this would make the pitch of a vibrato note sound flat: if you play a note without vibrato, then add the vib halfway through, the average pitch of the oscilation would be lower, but I don't hear it as sounding flat, even p;ayers with a quite an exaggerated vibrato such as Earl Bostic.

This is with the oscillations below the pitch:



And with both below and above, so the "average pitch" is not flattened:

 
See less See more
2
#2 ·
It is interesting -- I conceive of vibrato as a drop from pitch, and a return to it. At any reasonable vibrato speed (16ths at 72 or above--Mule taught 72, then later 76, and most classical players today are playing in a range from 76-92), the perceived pitch becomes the top of the spinning.

Most importantly, moving above pitch will cause a tight and pinched sound with each oscillation --- the saxophone is very flexible downwards in pitch, not very flexible upwards. Vibrato, then, is not only pitch oscillation, but also a subtle change of timbre and a change of dynamic (slightly louder at the bottom, where the reed can vibrate with the greatest freedom).

At least that's how I play and teach it in a classical context. It has great expressive potential, if applied with musical discretion and intention.
 
#3 ·
Most importantly, moving above pitch will cause a tight and pinched sound with each oscillation --- the saxophone is very flexible downwards in pitch, not very flexible upwards. Vibrato, then, is not only pitch oscillation, but also a subtle change of timbre and a change of dynamic (slightly louder at the bottom, where the reed can vibrate with the greatest freedom).
Yes, this is exactly how I see it, much as I hate to disagree with Mr Teal, though looking at it his diagram could be purely in relation to the singing voice, which could well go below and above. Or more probabaly above first then below. But he does imply the saxophone vibrato is an emulation of the singing voice vibrato.

But he does also mention, as you do , about the change of timbre and dynamics.

16ths at 72 or above--Mule taught 72, then later 76, and most classical players today are playing in a range from 76-92,
I've started a bit of a study, measuring the rate of various players. So far I have King Curtis and Johnny Hodges, both at 85 for 16ths (though this does not relate to the tempo of the music, purely a way to express the rate of vibrato which is rarely played as 16ths)
 
#5 ·
Most people go below the pitch exclusively because their embouchures are not "centered", therefore when they use vibrato they really only have one direction to go but down. In my opinion if you begin a long note as a pure tone (no vib) and then allow it to blossom into a vibrato, it sounds odd (really flat) if the pitch only goes below and not above at least a little, but there are traditions that do this .... Joe Viola suggested the more "centered" approach back in the day. Of course due to the way tone is produced, it's more likely that even the vibrato I use has slightly more "down" than "up", but there is some up...
 
#40 ·
This brings up an interesting topic (to me at least). I recently started taking lessons again after a long hiatus from a player with a very different background from the teacher that I originally learned from. The new teacher suggested tuning the sax on the sharp side an using my embuochure to pull the pitch down. (He showed me pictures of Coletrane doing just this.) Both of us like my tone and I don't have trouble playing in tune, so I've been too scared to try it. As things stand, I don't have a lot of room to pull flat notes up but can pull a sharp note down about a full step.
 
#6 ·
I just did a little general reading and the consensus on violin is that vibrato should be in tune to below and back. I mention that not because it is conclusive but because I suspect the pedagogy and research on violin vibrato is more extensive than it is for sax. Something that's mentioned is that the listener will perceive the highest pitch of a note with vibrato as being the "true pitch" so the note would be perceived as sharp if vibrato oscillated below and above. Whether that is correct or not can't say.
 
#7 ·
I just did a little general reading and the consensus on violin is that vibrato should be in tune to below and back. I mention that not because it is conclusive but because I suspect the pedagogy and research on violin vibrato is more extensive than it is for sax.
Interestingly though, a guitar vibrato, due to the frets, can only be the higher then the pitch. As you bend across or push down on the string, the pitch raises. It can't go below the tuned pitch. (Well only with a whammy bar)

Something that's mentioned is that the listener will perceive the highest pitch of a note with vibrato as being the "true pitch" so the note would be perceived as sharp if vibrato oscillated below and above. Whether that is correct or not can't say.
I've heard that too, and that's how it sounds to me when I hear Bostic with a wide vibrato, I do not hear or sense a flattening. But this may be something different people perceive differently. We hear out of tuneness differently as I'm discovering on another thread.

EDIT: I just saw that Joe Allard thought a vibrato should be below and above to be in tune. Hmm..
 
#8 ·
I agree with Johngalt. Most people (including myself) play with their mouth/jaw in a sharp position with the mouthpiece pulled out. This doesn't allow for much if any bending up.
If I spend time loosening up my embouchure and pushing in the piece so I can bend up my vibrato can be centered and go above and below. In the heat of the moment I always revert.
I wish I had learned and practised that way.
To me it sounds like most singers and reed players oscillate down not up. I'm used to it, but when I hear someone use both sides it sounds weird at first then bright and in tune when I use my tuning ears.
Many (but not all) string players center their vibrato. The chorus effect of many strings is partly due to how they play vibrato.
 
#10 ·
Back when I first used an Eventide Harmonizer to 'thicken' synth sounds from the Prophet 5 and DX7, I would detune put the synth sound through the Harmonizer and put on delay plus I would detune by one or two cents and return it to another channel on the console. Bringing the pitch up 2 cents always sounded wrong to me. I tuned it down only.
 
#13 ·
Yes, obviously a loose embouchure will allow for more "above pitch" oscillation.

If anyone wants to post somewhere a soundclip of a long note, starting straight and adding vibrato, I'd be happy to do some waveform analysis. A good tuner should be able to tell you, but you never know.

I would not trust the human ear or brain to know exactly what is going on, I think the brain can make all kinds of adjustments and compensations.
 
#14 ·
My concept of saxophone vibrato had always been simply to lower and return to pitch. But I watched those YouTube videos where Harvey Pittel is explaining Joe Allard's teaching and he described how the pitch should go both above and below the in tune note. Kind of shocked by this, I went to my horn to experiment. Though I believed vibrato should only go down on the saxophone, I never really gave the specifics of it much conscious thought while playing. When I experimented on the horn, it turned out that I did go slightly above pitch. It wasn't an even wave where the reference pitch was exactly in the middle of the wave. It was somewhere in between your two diagrams. I experimented with trying to make sure the pitch never went up at all and to my ears it didn't sound as good as the other way where it went slightly above pitch.

My thinking is that describing saxophone vibrato only as a lowering and return to pitch is a good foundation. Describing it as a lowering and raising could cause students to raise too much, leading to more of a pinched sound or an attempt to make the wave even on both sides. If you start with the concept of only lowering pitch, the ear will eventually take over and add that slight raising of the pitch if the ear determines it produces a more appealing vibrato.
 
#15 ·
My thinking is that describing saxophone vibrato only as a lowering and return to pitch is a good foundation. Describing it as a lowering and raising could cause students to raise too much, leading to more of a pinched sound or an attempt to make the wave even on both sides. If you start with the concept of only lowering pitch, the ear will eventually take over and add that slight raising of the pitch if the ear determines it produces a more appealing vibrato.
Great way to look at it.

I just did a quick test recording, and I was quite surprised to see the result of my own vibrato:



I had previously been convinced it was only below, but there is a slight bit above.
 
#17 ·
And here is a graphical representation of the vibrato of Kenny G:



From the hit pop tune Songbird

The rate of his vibrato is 6 cycles per second.

Compare some other famous saxophone players:

PlayerRate (vps)Tempo @ 4 vbpTempo @ 3 vpb
John Coltrane19593.75675
John Coltrane19664.97499
Sidney Bechet19517.4110147
King Curtis19665.785113
Kenny G19866.090120
Johnny Hodges19615.785113
 
#19 ·
I'd be interested in seeing an analysis of Mr. Pittel's vibrato. He claims to be going only above the pitch, but I'm skeptical. Tom Walsh, sax prof at Indiana University, talks about above and below being correct, and attempts to demonstrate only below, and it sounds like junk (YouTube video of a class he gave in Kentucky). I'm also curious to see if Marcel Mule held to the "rule of 300" that Mr. Pittel talks about.
 
#25 ·
Tom Walsh, sax prof at Indiana University, talks about above and below being correct, and attempts to demonstrate only below, and it sounds like junk .
But it doesn't sound like junk if, for instance, Earl Bostic does it. I don't believe there need be any universal rules, what sounds good to the player and their audience, is good.

I used to think the pitch had to be above and below, so the average was in tune, but I have since changed my mind.
 
#29 ·
I just did a little experiment (I'm home today from work, sick with fever), I appear to center the wave on the pitch. And I use a lot of vibrato, as I've said before.
 
#35 ·
Marcel Mule

http://clarinet-saxophone.asn.au/wp-content/uploads/interview-with-Marcel-Mule.pdf

I imposed something that I would continue to impose if I would still teach, that is, that the normal correct speed is around 300 undulations for a minute.

Considering that the vibrato is made of a high note and a note a little flatter, it is necessary to lower a little, not too much, and at a certain speed. I taught to play a note without vibrato, then with a lower note with the same fingering and same embouchure.

Then I suggested acceleration and an undulation occurred for work at 300 undulations per minute.

This is how work starts, without being a prisoner to counting. Setting the metronome at 75 gives four vibrations per beat.

If one sets it at 100, it gives 3 vibrations, if one sets it at 150, it will be 2 vibrations. If one sets it at 60, it is a little more difficult, that would give 5 vibrations.

But one can reach this result quite well. I advised them to work in that way and to apply it to melodic lines and to always control the speed so that it would not be excessive either way and definitely not to drop under lest one would get the "oua oua" (wa wa) that one hears sometimes with some instrumentalists and with some singers mainly in bass voices.
I have known instrumentalists, a flautist in particular who played marvellously, in a very supple way and he was very surprised that one would practise vibrato with a metronome.

It is true, why with a metronome, that appears aberrant! I imposed a speed and found myself facing peculiar cases at the Conservatoire:a student who played not badly at all but, in my opinion, set a too tight vibrato and it was with difficulty that I would get him to play at a slower pace.
When he had achieved it, it was magnificent and when it happened I would always ask the other students: "it is good: why?"
It was my point of view and in fact I have not changed since experience proved that it was successful. From then on, the instrument was recognised by many.

 
#36 ·
This is a great thread documenting the differences in teachings about saxophone vibrato. There's obviously no one correct way, as shown by different great teachers on all sides of the debate.

Most (especially classical) teach the below-the-pitch method, some a mix of above and below, and few promote going above the pitch.

A notable exception is Michael Brecker, whose vibrato was almost exclusively above the pitch center. Here at 2:15 is an excellent example.
 
#37 ·
I remember a discussion on this I came across years ago in Gunther Schuller's original book on Jazz. As I recall, he found that most clarinet and sax players had a vibrato that was evenly oscillating above and below the pitch, like Pete's first diagram — but Johnny Dodds, he claimed, had a vibrato which was entirely below, as in Pete's second diagram.
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top