Michael, I found you via David Jones. He has recommended that I contact you to pursue some vocal training. I have sung in various choirs over many years and love to sing. However, I’ve been disappointed in that I’m not able to sing with vibrato consistently..it seems to occur “at will” and not on command. David’s web site explains that this can be developed. I am hoping that you can help.
————————————————————————————————————-
You mention the issue of inconsistent vibrato. This gives us a good place to start. The first thing is to understand that vibrato is not something we control or create. And we don’t really develop it either. It gets developed as a by-product of improving the conditions of our instrument.
I look at vibrato as a “symptom” of our vocal function. A healthy, regular vibrato is a sign of healthy, balanced function. If there is irregularity or absence of vibrato, then that is a symptom of imbalance in the function. It is like when we are sick and go to the doctor. They listen to what our symptoms are that make us think we’re sick. Then a good doctor investigates to find out what the underlying condition is that is causing the symptoms. A poor doctor just gives a prescription that treats the symptoms, but doesn’t address the real cause. This really just masks the symptoms but doesn’t improve the condition.
Vibrato can be treated the same way. If the vibrato is irregular or non-existent, we can try to improve it. Which is just addressing the symptom and pretty much just adds new problems of imbalance on top of the old ones. Or we can take that symptom and address the over-all condition of the instrument and investigate where there is a lack of coordination and balance that is causing the vibrato problem.
One is short-sighted and never really solves the problem. The other is a realistic approach that will gradually and eventually allow the instrument to find its natural condition. This will always be the best result and provide a long-term solution.
So that is what I mean by “we don’t really develop it”. We don’t want to try and influence it directly, because the vibrato is not where the problem is. The problem is in the functional balance. If we remedy that, then we indirectly have also developed a better vibrato.
I get a similar question from young singers who lack a vibrato. The same principles apply. If they were to try to develop a vibrato without addressing the overall condition they likely would create new problems that would hold back their overall development.
I hope this makes sense and gives you an idea of what needs to be worked on. I would have to hear you to start assessing the current condition of your function and how it needs to be improved. As the condition improves the vibrato will change for the better. But we never want to try and change the vibrato directly. It is always a by-product of the overall healthy and balance.
Does anyone know the vocal range of Ofra Haza? Oh and I love her vibrato, she had one really strong fast vibrato. He live performance of ”Wen Esalam” is minblowing, it goes to show how fast her vibrato can be.
Those things you describe are true. There are many reasons for an inconsistent vibrato. And as I explain above they are all various way the balance of the functioning of the voice is off. So instead of wasting time trying to figure out what is the specific cause this particular time I focus on continuing to improve the balance of the overall function. Because we can’t actually make changes immediately. So me feeling is what’s the point? If we get fixated on the vibrato we are likely to cause other problems that will need to be fixed in the future. The remedies you describe are actually attempts to change the condition of the instrument. But they also have many pitfalls that go along with them. So I don’t want to fall into that trap. I’d rather accept things as they are and focus on improving the overall condition and balance of the instrument. That is the approach that most consistently gives positive long-term results.
This doesn’t make sense to me. Too much pressure can prevent the vibrato or slow it down, so can too little support. The vibrato can be freed by singing more lightly and by using a bit of tremolo, or semi-trill, after which the vocal cords are more able to respond with vibrato, in my experience. It also helps to establish good rhythm and tempo, as I find the vibrato is usually in time with the music.
Thanks for your question. I would suspect that this is a symptom of weakness in her head voice. I have no way of knowing what the reason for the weakness is, though. It could be because she isn’t doing the things necessary to strengthen it. Or it could be just because that is the condition of a teenage female voice. But if her chest voice is strong it is my suspicion that she needs to use the voice more equally between the two parts.
If the chest voice is strong and the head voice is not then that is a symptom of being out of balance. The voice needs to be conditioned to be oriented as if it is always coming from the head voice. The the strength of the chest voice is helpful because it is added to the flexibility of the head voice.
But if the voice is trained the other way by making the chest voice strong it will tend to always be a block. We can make flexibility stronger but it is hard to make strength flexible. Hope that helps. If you would like me to see and hear her specifically, that is what my Recorded Consultations are for. Let me know if that interests you and I can address her issue. It is only $19. Thanks.
I have a 16 year-old daughter with some vibrato in her chest voice and little to none in her passaggio and head. She has been taking lessons 7 years and her range has improved but the vibrato has still not made a consistent appearance. As she wants to major in vocal performance in college, will this hold her back or will the vibrato eventually come? I know some kids younger than she who have it.
Thank you for your comment, Stuart. To clarify my statement, vibrato is a symptom of the function. Period. If the vibrato is irregular it is a sign there is something out of balance in the function. If the vibrato is regular, steady and not excessive it tells us that conditions are good. Trying to do something with the vibrato steps over into unhealthy manipulation, and in general should be avoided. If the vibrato is excessive to the point that the singer desires to eliminate it, then it is probably not a healthy vibrato. Also, as I have stated elsewhere, vibrato is related to intensity. If one sings at a low intensity vibrato will be less pronounced. If one sings at a higher intensity freely the vibrato will naturally intensify. If a singer wishes to sing with higher intensity without vibrato they will need to manipulate by constricting to some degree to restrict the oscillations. Vibrato is the acoustic equivalent that we can see when observing a wheel or propeller spinning at a fast speed. The rate of revolutions are so fast that we can no longer see the individual elements rotating. What we can see is an illusion of a slower rotation. An example of a propeller here: http://youtu.be/-sjqir7YzVQ?t=6s (loud audio)
At certain revolution rate it even appears to go in the opposite direction. So a true vibrato is more of an acoustic illusion from the rapid puffs of air releasing into the open space of the laryngo-pharynx. It basically is a product of pressure and the relationship between the pressure of the air below the glottis vs. above the glottis and the acoustic result of releasing the pressure through the act of vibration. The variable conditions of that release of pressure account for the various forms of vibrato that we observe.
It was stated by Mr. Mayer some time ago that vibrato is merely a “symptom” of a balanced production on a sustained note being sung as I understand it. However, if there is an imbalance somewhere in producing a sustained note, vibrato will sound wrong and shaky. If anyone has ever driven a car with even one tire out of balance, the whole car will shake and the ride will be anything but smooth. From what I understand via research on the voice, everyone already has vibrato which originates from nerve impulses to both the Cricothyroid muscle which causes it to contract to a higher tone and relax while the nerve impulse goes to to Arytenoid muscle causing it to contract and relax which lowers the tone. It is the interaction of these two muscles opposing each other that causes vibrato (the fluctuation of pitch at 5-7 times per second in the execution of a note) in an open and free voice. It goes without saying that any sort of tension and stress in the larynx region will prevent vibrato coming through during the execution of a sung note. Assuming that the trained voice is permitting a natural and healthy vibrato to occur, it is possible with a great deal of effort to sing straight tones if the music required it. Vibrato is involuntary for the most part and can be controlled to a point only by trained vocalists. And for those who can sing only straight tones and desire vibrato occur in their voices, a teacher in voice would be the best person to take lessons from to ensure that correct singing hygiene be employed by the student who desires natural vibrato to emerge as a byproduct of singing expertise. It will take time and will not take over night as I speak from experience. Personally, there are no shortcuts to the execution of the beautiful singing voice. Thank you. SJW
Glad you’re finding it helpful, Chris. The technique you refer to is a common one in non-classical styles of Musical Theater, Show Tunes and Jazz. It is an expressive technique and not a functional one. If we are speaking strictly then it is not a healthy choice. Any manipulation is not a good idea. But to be realistic it is probably not a big deal if the rest of the time the voice is functioning freely. I would say that theory deals in absolutes but reality deals with degrees of balance. We’re never going to stay perfectly balanced. We just want to stay within a reasonable degree as much as we can.
Thanks for the great information. It really helps to approach these same basic concepts from multiple angles and multiple lines of enquiry in order to drive home just how important they are, and how easily they can be distorted. I actually have another question about vibrato. I am a big fan of Anthony Warlow’s musical theatre singing, and I have noticed that he (and other accomplished contemporary singers that I have heard) tend to hold off on vibrato on certain long notes (such as the final high note in a song) to create an added sense of tension and then resolve into the vibrato. Since these singers, to me, tend to use their voices in a fairly healthy manner compared to most, would this sort of intentional temporary imbalance be considered harmful? Or is it simply a matter of degree?
Exactly, Michael.
Bea, these are absolutely the points I’m trying to get people to recognize. Thank you for contributing your observations. Cover is a hugely misunderstood concept. I have such a hard time listening to so many singers because of the obsession with artificially over-dark vowels. That is a good point about lyric voice trying to sound more dramatic. I think that is exactly it. I often say “more impressive”. Same idea. It’s to the point where sopranos sound like a fake mezzo, tenors sound like a fake baritone and baritone sound like fake basses.
The issue of the cover is a whole article in itself. If the voice is functioning completely there is a natural adjustment as there is an increase in pitch. The effect of that adjustment is a consistency in tone quality. Because we are accustomed to hearing the voice spread and lose color with the rise of pitch, when this doesn’t happen because of proper adjusting it sounds like the voice gets darker. It also seems to become more contained inside the resonators rather that escaping out of the mouth. This is what keeps the color. This is what gives the impression of being “covered”. Keeping a balanced resonating condition.
But as you mention, this is not something we specifically try to do. It is more of a desire to keep things connected and well coordinated than trying to do some specific manipulation with the vowel. As you said, it is the natural result of staying connected through the passaggio.
Sadly, I feel too many “experts” are not willing to listen. However, there is hope that the younger generation will consider what they are told.
As for the overly dark vowels, I think that comes about for 2 reasons: the desire to make an essentially lyric voice Pretend to sound more dramatic (with terrible results) and a confusion over what was once called the vocal cover. Vowels did modify in the passaggio to a slightly darker form then would be allowed to brighten up again once through the passaggio. Some teachers teach a vowel modification that is so pronounced with ah almost becoming a cross between and oh and an oo sound.
In the past, most singers called the cover a narrowing of the voice in the passaggio, and what they really felt was the voice becoming more compact; the larynx lowers slightly, the vowel darkens slightly and the voice remains so focused and concentrated it passes through the passaggio. When it happens of itself, the mouth also draws in more to an oh look than a smile. Older singers were well aware of the increased strength in the support needed at this time. But the problem was they were trying to describe something that happened naturally, and it was turned into something that was manipulated. If one listens to older recordings, even of Caruso, one will hear this cover or darkening through the passaggio. But one will also hear a slight lightening or brightening of the sound just before the cover begins (a lift some people call it). But the darkening is slight and the vowel is still the vowel we expect to hear. It hasn’t altered to something else entirely.
Whether Caruso did this intentionally or allowed it to happen, I could never say. One also never seems to hear the cover much in female voices, excepting some very huge dramatic voices, and it is not constantly used either. It is like it is used only very wisely and only in forte singing, never in piano or pianissimo singing.
To my ear, this is really the natural adjustment the voice makes as it passes into the higher range.
But soon this misunderstanding occurred and everyone was deliberately covering, but until more recently, only in the passaggio. Suddenly everyone is using this covered sound, this darkened sound, and it is a dead sound. The old cover was never a dead sound, but a very ringing sound both very dark and very bright at the same time. What we have now is a dead lifeless sound. It has lost half its color.
There were teachers and singers complaining about this same issue over a hundred years ago. It started to become the fashion for men after Caruso used it, and of course, everyone wanted to sound like Caruso. But even then, most tenors still used the cover only in the passaggio and only in forte singing.
Exactly when it all got all mixed up, I cannot say. But I can say one hears it all the time now, when in the beginning of my career very few singers used such a constant covered sound. And even fewer used it throughout their entire range.
At least that is how I see the change and how it gradually took over singing. Now it is more the norm than the exception, and that is what people think a real operatic voice should sound like. It doesn’t. That kind of a voice is far weaker than most people think. It doesn’t carry as easily. It also loses life the further away from it you get. A great voice in the past was described in completely opposite terms, it would increase in volume, size, and ring the further away you got from it. Thus impressive voices really came to their own in impressive theatres. That doesn’t happen much any more. And to give presence to this weaker immitation voice one is forced to force, and I believe that results in the horrible wobble and vibrato with a hole in it that we are subjected to so often today.
Yes, Bea. Intrusive is a good description for what to listen for. Irregular vibratos seem intrusive. A balanced, regular vibrato is almost not noticeable, as you said. I have also spoken out about the practice of manipulating the vibrato that is especially common in early music. It is harmful to the voice and just misguided in artistic practice. Let’s hope someone hears us.
Thanks for this info, Dinko. I agree completely with this Swedish teacher you refer to. There is an epidemic among singers in the inability to sing an actual ah vowel. So many are over-darkening the vowels to try and sound more impressive. They don’t realize that artificial darkness is worthless. The value is in natural darkness that doesn’t come at the expense of the natural brightness.
Good point about scientific observation. It does seem to get too isolated and loses greater context. And it is that context that would make it worthwhile for practical application.
Dinko, you are absolutely correct that some people do demand the vibrato be one way or another, and claim it suits this or that musical style. One finds that all the time in Authentic recordings and performances of older music. The idea of no vibrato actually came about because that authentic performance practice was began by instrumentalists, and their instruments were not played with vibrato. They concluded that ALL music had no vibrato. But we know that is not true, for even as far back as 50 BC they had la voce stops on organs, which actually played two notes to create the vibrato (the sound was extremely clumbsy, but obviously even then they knew the voice vibrated). I do not feel this practice of creating a certain type of vibrato is correct nor authentic.
I also agree with Michael that now days we are accustomed to accepting large voices with huge wobbles and think that is natural to the voice. I believe we are accepting of that because we haven’t really heard many large voices. We have heard many medium sized voices singing very loud dramatic music and pushing their voices out of wack to do it. Believe me, when a truly large voice comes around, no one knows what to do with it, not even conductors. The public often think they are “shouting” even though they are doing no such thing. A truly large voice will seem quite loud, but it is really extremely ringing and free. Even its pianissimi will sound small and delicate but huge and ringing at the same time. Some times when such voices do come around, conductors will play the orchestra even louder because they finally have a voice that will allow them to play the orchestra as it was intended. But they overdo, and the huge voiced singer is forced to forced just like a medium voiced singer is forced to do. And the results of forcing the voice (blasting too much air through the folds for dramatic affect) causes the voice to fall apart, and the vibrato to become a terrible wobble. Such a wobble is NEVER acceptable to me, especially when singing Richard Strauss or Richard Wagner (who often has the most strained voices singing his magnificent music).
I agree with Michael that a vibrato is natural to the voice that creates it, and not all vibratos are the same. The key is not frequency but regularity and evenness. That is the key. When that is correct with the particular voice, one will not really notice the vibrato all that much. Yes, it is there, it may be quicker or it may be slower, but it is not intrusive. The music catches our attention, not the vibrato, wobble, or lack thereof. And a good vibrato must be judged by ear. One can hear if it is correct, of one really wants to. Those teachers like you mentioned that demand it sound this way or that, wobbly and slow or quick as lightening, are not seeking for a balanced production or a free voice, but some preconceived idea of what they think good singing should sound like. And sadly, you are right, too many such teachers do exist.
@ Beatrice…I just wanted to add quickly that I didn’t mean that a teacher is measuring the vibrato and saying it should be of such and such frequency to a student. But that the ideal which certain teachers consider healthy or good is somewhere around that frequency. I’ve never been told to sing with vibrato of 5 Hz…But I have been told to sing with no vibrato at times or that my vibrato is still “not ok”, when it was in fact ok, or that this type of vibrato is not appropriate for this type of music, that I should make it more slow or things like this. Some have also tried to convince me that singing of certain individuals, who sang with an obvious irritating wobble, was in fact a “free voice”. And in my culture, that is actually considered a good operatic sound by many. I’m not sure Björling would have had a tenor career here…And I’m only half joking now…
One Swedish voice teacher who I find interesting, talked about the deformation of aesthetic sense and the compromises we have done in vocal music, to the level that we find it normal now to hear “ove marea” instead of “ave maria” and many other now normal things in opera music. And she wrote that 100 years ago. She would have got a heart attack if she went to a modern opera.
And yes, the recording technology even today, can’t really record a voice. My favorite modern example for this is Inva Mula. You don’t get much from her recordings at all. In her recital, she made me forget breathing in some phrases how captured I was. The way her extremely pure high pianissimo rings and how she can swell and diminish the tone from it without loosing the brilliant shiny sharp sound which holds all her tones in a phrase together, especially on the higher part of her range, is not noticable on any of her recordings. On some of them at all.
@Michael…Thank you for clearing this up. I figured out sometimes you just have to say “yes, ok” and then continue doing by your own instinct and what you feel as good, trust yourself. And I agree about the observation on science in general. I also think that it’s not just the problem of lack of observation, because it still exists, but the observation of very isolated things, simply because it’s…more simple, without ever thinking of a wider context, forgetting that things tend to interact, always.
Yes, Bea. The nature of the vibrato may differ depending on the individual. I think of it in a similar way as the difference between a cello and a violin. They have similarities and differences. Even though there are differences they are correct to their own nature. If the instrument is larger it would only be natural for the vibrato to be correspondingly larger as well. The problem is many large voices allow the vibrato to fall apart and they think it is normal because they have a large voice. That is why it takes an educated ear attached to a living person to determine these things and not a machine that measures rates with no understanding for natural variables. The keys are regularity and evenness, which can vary depending on the individual voice.
Thanks Chris.
Dinko – You are right that many use science and nature to support their claims. I talk about nature all the time also. But the difference is I try not to make claims. I try to see what is actually going on. The problem with a lot of scientists, not just voice science, is they are looking to support their personal beliefs. What I do is just as scientific. It is actually the original scientific method. Observation. No measuring devices, no graphs, no electrodes, no computers. Just educated ears and observation. Modern science has lost this ability because they depend on the graphs and computers to listen for them. They don’t have the developed listening that can hear these differences. Because to hear them depends on sensitivity beyond hearing. It depends on feeling in your own body what is going on in another.
The biggest thing is trust yourself. Science has led us away from understanding for ourselves and instead depending on so-called experts to tell us how things are. The thing is they have so busy being scientists that they haven’t developed the level of understanding of the body that someone who has actually dealt with the voice for years does.
Here is a comment to throw a monkey wrench into the affair. There are voices, usually very large voices, that have a wide vibrant vibrato. It is not a wobble, nor is it necessarily slow. It is a healthy speed. But it is not the shimmering vibrato you hear in light sopranos or that sort of voice. Nor is it intrusive in nature (an intrusive vibrato is like the slow wobble you speak of in much Wagner singing, or what Maria Callas did quite often). It doesn’t distort the pitch, but it is what the Italians calls a wide vibrato. One is well aware of its distance. Some vibratos are very close to pitch and the variations outside of the main pitch are slight, some are so wide of the marked pitch that they leave us confused as to the center of the note, but our ears still hear what we are intended to hear. It is only the extreme slow speed that makes them sound like a wobble. This wide vibrato has more distance around the central note, but not to the point it feels out of center. Yet, it will fit your discussion of vibrato.
I have never heard of any teacher requiring a singer sing at any Hz. Most teachers I have seen see vibrato, as Michael described it, a tool to judge if the voice is functioning properly. They usually can hear that a too fast vibrato is caused by some imbalance, and a too slow one often by very weak support, again a form of imbalance.
With all the stuff one had to learn to sing and have a career, I would have gone nuts if I had to measure my vibrato and make sure it fit into a certain measurement of Hz, and worry about pitch, and breath control, and support, and putting emotion into the voice, and acting, and moving in very uncomfortable costumes, etc. My mind would have been so occupied with stuff I wouldn’t have been able to do my job, which was to SING.
As for comparing to older recordings, unless the vibrato had turned to a huge wobble, or was so tight (like a famous tenor of the early part of the 20th Century) that all we could think of was a comical “larry the lamb” most vibrato didn’t show up in the recordings. We know the singers had vibrato, and some times quite uncontrolled vibrato, because of what the critics of the day wrote about them. Only as recording technology improved did we start to hear the real vibrancy of the voices (the vibrancy is not only the volume and ring, but the vibrato and the energy, the overtones and the actual centeral tone of the voice). Even today, with all our advanced technology we still cannot capture a voice fully. It is captured enough to recognize the person and to hear many of the overtones, but so much is still lost (the real vibrancy, the power and ring, the energy of the tone, a whole list of things; even not all the overtones are reproduced well). Some voices (like Dimitrova) will sound pushed in recording (and they had her stand not in front as most singers, but back behind the orchestra and chorus when she recorded because the amplitude and energy of the sound simply overpowered all our equipment; they would then reduce her voice with all their switches and balances, bring up the other singer’s voices, and then bring hers up to match — it was all a recording engineering fete). In reality, they did not sound pushed. Some sound almost shrill, but are not that way in life. Nelsson never recorded well. Her voice was a huge voice, and it was a heavy voice as well (she didn’t have much agility and it moved slowly; but it was well managed). Yet, no recording ever gave you the real sound of her voice. One thing she always did was sing sharp of pitch center, that is not sharp as most people think, but just slightly sharp of the center of the note.
Eve Marton often sounds really wild and wooly with a massive wobble, especially in recordings. But in reality she didn’t really sound like that at all. She had one of those vibrant wide vibratos which was distorted by the recording equipment. Of course, toward the end of her career, yes, a wobble had developed.
We simply cannot always judge things by recordings, nor by scientific theory. Scientific understanding has never created a great singer. It may help us understand to a point what they are doing, but it cannot tell us how it is done. And even like Chris said, many singers can’t/don’t know exactly what they are doing when they sing so beautifully. They often describe things that seem so at odds with what they are actually doing. But there again, that comes about because of different descriptions of how to sing. Michael wrote a wonderful little statement about how people can be describing the same thing, and saying the same thing, but looking at it from a different vantage point. That happens in singing all the time. Many singers describe what the feel, not what is actually physically happening when they sing. Most are not all that aware of what is actually physically going on when they sing. All they know is they must feel a certain way, and when they do, all works well. There is no strain in the singing.
There is another aspect of singing, and that is “working out our own salvation.” We can know all the theories, we can know all the exercises, we can perfect all the things that give us balanced function, but because each of us has a very unique body and body type, how we feel those things may not be exactly the same as how someone else feels them. They only become a reality to us as we learn to feel them and enjoy the results.
Yes it actually can be controlled. Not that it’s a good thing to do, the correct one being in the middle. In the sense that it’s an effect of good function, so only when we sing truly well and in line with nature this one will appear.
Those who regard it as a musical effect, change it quite often (actually unbalance the voice quite often to get this), because there is this belief you don’t sing Puccini with the same vibrato you sing Wagner, and it’s different from a let’s say Bellini vibrato, and especially the non existent early music vibrato…these are all understandings “how to perform” something promoted by singers, conductors, teachers, coaches… As a result many more problems arise. So, it became “normal” (even again considered healthy and natural by many) that if you have a dramatic voice your vibrato is slow and wide, or if you’re a lighter voice it’s normal that the vibrato is too fast. And now as a result of that you can’t find many Wagner performances which actually have singers singing and not being so wobbly you have trouble hearing a tone.
The preference of one among teachers is just different understanding of what healthy is supposed to be, and as I mentioned, different research provides different results obviously. If you don’t know, or have the wrong knowledge, you’ll just exercise the student to the point when he achieves what you believe to be healthy. If you are thought that a slightly slower vibrato is an effect of good function. Plus in your cultural context it’s actually asked for. And plus you have some research (whatever it is) which will back this up. Even though, as I said, it might not be well conducted research. You will of course prefer this one over the other and believe the student arrived at the point they are singing well. And you’d be very surprised what everything is being considered good and healthy singing in different corners of the world.
And I agree with you regarding, well, some vocal science, I’ve also read papers like that. But the point is you can’t measure everything, you have to isolate and reduce. Otherwise it would be too complex. The art of science, if I might call it like that, is to gather many of these isolated researches and draw conclusions which come out of these things together. And if needed research some more.
But I don’t believe science is bad. It’s very good we have vocal science. I just think many who conduct it should think about the problems more holistically and be aware what other people discovered too…Luckily we have sites like this which which will provide us with correct information.
I was aware that there is lots of variation of vibrato in different genres and different cultures, but I had no idea that there are teachers out there advocating one frequency over another! Is this actually something we can control? – I wouldn’t even know how, to be honest! Vibrato feels, to me, like a strong, uncontrollable pulsation that seems to come out of nowhere – is this how everyone else’s feels? Of course, it is possible to fake the vibrato with the larynx like a lot of pop singers. You can also do that weird Aaron Neville thing that is some sort of rapid onset trill(!?). But I have listned to laryngeal vibrato acoustically and it doesn’t have any pulsating quality to it, even if it sounds strong on recordings. I have always assumed that the too-fast and too-slow vibrato (but not quite qualifying as a tremolo or wobble) is a symptom of slight muscular imbalance caused by an imperfect technique? Are there lots of classical singers out there tweaking their vibrato?
My biggest problem with the vocal science I have read is that it analyses with a reductionist viewpoint; and while it certainly establishes what it is great singers do – it can’t possibly explain how they actually do it, from such a limited context. Instead you get ambiguous information like ‘all great singers raise their soft palate’. But is this intentional, or is it an unintentional by-product of correct vocal function? I read a book by Jerome Hines called “Great Singers on Great Singing”. It has interviews with a large number of opera greats about their techniques. I don’t think any of them agreed on anything. That’s what made me realise that what singers actually do, and the intentions they have, are not necessarily the same thing – so how can we possibly objectively research them? – their bodies tell you what’s happening but not how, and their mouths tell you what they think they are doing, often in complete contradiction to what’s actually going on. I, personally, am extremely sceptical of advice based on vocal science.
Yes, I agree with that, but the reason I asked and what always lead me aside is the fact that they all have “science” and “nature” to back up their claims, that was the problem, it was not their opinion or tradition. Most of those teachers even proclaim themselves as voice scientists and have the research to back up what they talk about.
I don’t know on which sample this research was conducted, and it’s crucial. Of course you’ll read those were “great singers”, but according to who is not written. This is the element which depends on cultural and traditional background. Because the aesthetic ideal of a British choir sound, is definitely much much different from an aesthetic ideal of a slavic opera soprano. And even though it’s the same research, choosing the “good” sample group in one context will bring you a completely different result in another. So it turns out science isn’t scientific enough, because it doesn’t approach the problem in general… If you take 10 bad singers, you’ll find the function of one of them the best. But that doesn’t mean there aren’t thousands of other singers, not in the research, which have better function than that particular individual and illustrate healthy vocalising, and as such healthy vibrato better.
That is the reason I asked. The vibrato, however, turns to be only one of the fields where same vocal science provides different results, which then different teachers quote…Unfortunately for anyone who tries to find the original natural truth, which arises from the design of the anatomy itself…
And I still have a hard time not doubting my instincts, with so much “knowledgeable” people with degrees and so much of these “scientifically” backed up claims around me. But I’m getting there…
Thanks, Dinko. I would say start with your first statement. “Different teacher have different ideas”. Ideas, and traditions, are opinions. We are not interested in opinions. We are interested in finding out what things actually are and how they are designed to operate.
Regarding vibrato, as I said in the post above, it is a symptom of the condition of the function. It exists in relation to the condition of the vibration, which is influenced by the condition of the breathing and the condition of the resonance.
When the resonator and/or the breathing is interfering in some way and adding weight to the vibration the vibrato will slow and also widen. When they are not balanced from a lack of sufficient connection the vibrato may be fast or fluttery. It all depends on the condition of all the parts inter-working together.
The vibrato condition you describe as preferable is an illustration of the result of balance between the components that make up the instrument. When the forces involved are connecting and working together in a balanced manner the result is regularity and stability. If one is sensitive it becomes obvious.
Hello Michael,
I have a question concerning “healthy vibrato”. I’ve had an experience of different teachers having very different ideas of what healthy vibrato sounds like. I also found it is much connected to tradition in the area where singing is being thought. I’ve found trough experimentation that I can influence the speed of vibrato, even the amplitude to an extent. But found my voice most free and natural, when the vibrato had the frequency around 7 Hz, with amplitude not more than a half-step and very little dynamic difference between the extremes in the pitch. It might get slower and widen really slightly if I would change the intensity to full, but fundamentally it stays somewhere over there.
I also personally find such vibrato most pleasing to listen to, in any kind of music, be it pop, jazz or opera. Singers I would connect to this kind of vibrato in different styles would be Jussi Björling, Ofra Haza (especially her), Ella Fitzgerald. Even Mady Mesple, who I think had a beautiful vibrato, but it didn’t seem as pleasing in all her recordings due to other technical problems, the nasality for example. In some recordings of modern classical music it sounded great to me.
While it can change a bit, depending on intensity, the very fundamental tone of all of them vibrated in a very fast way, which to me made this tone alive. Even Cecilia Bartoli on her earlier recordings had a beautiful vibrato similar to this, which would at moments disappear, slow down or widen, when she would darken the tone too much.
Interestingly, many different teachers wouldn’t agree with this and would find this type of vibrato too fast. Many teachers from where I’m from usually advocate the 5 Hz vibrato at most, or even slower and sort of wide. For me, personally, that sounds overly heavy, and I have difficulty accepting the fact that this is supposed to be a healthy completely relaxed vocal sound. I would rather describe it as overly relaxed. Almost inactive and hard responsive voice.
Could you perhaps provide insight, from what you know, what healthy vibrato sounds like? I’ve found a description of this on the site of Maestro Jones, yet, lack of examples leaves a lot to imagine. I know that on just one place he mentions the healthy vibrato of Bartoli, and since it’s a little older article, I believe he referenced her earlier recordings, which I personally also find most pleasing to listen to, in terms of her tone and interpretation.
I also read a study on singers of the past and their vibrato. And it showed that they all had a fast, around 7 Hz vibrato, what one clearly hears when one listens to old recordings. And it was minimal. But still overall present. It’s nature is on the other hands such that it’s difficult to notice at moments, as it doesn’t get in the aesthetics of the tone at all. Unlike a slow and wide vibrato. Adelina Patti, Lilli Lehmann, Caruso, Galli-Curci and others, to me all had a nice vibrato.
Thank you for your answer!