Add group to favorites
Back to post list
Send new message to group Search:
Post Subject:
vibrato
vibrato
It this done by wiggling the string up and down? I've heard that it's done
by pressure variance on the string, ie, increasing/decreasing the pressure
used to hold it against the fingerboard, but this just seems to make
it...rasp, I guess is the word I'm looking for. Wiggling the string up and
down seems to produce better results, but is this the right way of doing it?
OR is this another issue where the "whatever works" philosophy applies?
It this done by wiggling the string up and down? I've heard that it's done
by pressure variance on the string, ie, increasing/decreasing the pressure
used to hold it against the fingerboard, but this just seems to make
it...rasp, I guess is the word I'm looking for. Wiggling the string up and
down seems to produce better results, but is this the right way of doing it?
OR is this another issue where the "whatever works" philosophy applies?
Re: vibrato
Robert Riddle <captinlogic@gmail . com > wrote:
> It this done by wiggling the string up and down? I've heard that it's
> done by pressure variance on the string, ie, increasing/decreasing
> the pressure used to hold it against the fingerboard, but this just
> seems to make it...rasp, I guess is the word I'm looking for.
> Wiggling the string up and down seems to produce better results, but
> is this the right way of doing it? OR is this another issue where the
> "whatever works" philosophy applies?
It's not varying the pressure. It's usually either wiggling the string
up and down or side to side.
Robert Riddle <captinlogic@gmail . com > wrote:
> It this done by wiggling the string up and down? I've heard that it's
> done by pressure variance on the string, ie, increasing/decreasing
> the pressure used to hold it against the fingerboard, but this just
> seems to make it...rasp, I guess is the word I'm looking for.
> Wiggling the string up and down seems to produce better results, but
> is this the right way of doing it? OR is this another issue where the
> "whatever works" philosophy applies?
It's not varying the pressure. It's usually either wiggling the string
up and down or side to side.
Re: vibrato
There are lots of versions of vibrato. Albert Collins sounds like a
bee buzzing to me.
Then there is someone like Neal Schon of Journey who would bend a
note, then slowly move it back and forth on the way back down, which
gave it a singing effect imo.
BB King does a couple different things.
However you go, the pressure stays the same, you just move the string
back and forth with different speeds giving different feel.
Check out blues players as they tend to have some of the most
expressive vibrato.
There are lots of versions of vibrato. Albert Collins sounds like a
bee buzzing to me.
Then there is someone like Neal Schon of Journey who would bend a
note, then slowly move it back and forth on the way back down, which
gave it a singing effect imo.
BB King does a couple different things.
However you go, the pressure stays the same, you just move the string
back and forth with different speeds giving different feel.
Check out blues players as they tend to have some of the most
expressive vibrato.
Re: vibrato
On 09 Apr 2008, "Robert Riddle" <captinlogic@gmail . com > wrote in
alt.guitar.beginner:
> It this done by wiggling the string up and down?
What do you mean "up and down"?
Vibrato is created by varying the length and/or tension on the
string. Think what happens when you turn the tuning pegs - the pitch
goes up or down. If you could turn the knob fast and accurately
enough, you could produce vibrato. The most common way to produce a
similar but more controllable effect by pushing the string along the
length of (that is, parallel to) the fret. This will slightly
increase the distance between the bridge and that string's
point-of-contact with the fret and also increase the string's
tension. The pitch will go up. If you cyclically bend the string
then relax it to it's original position, you'll get vibrato,
similar to a singer's.
> I've heard that it's done by pressure variance on the string,
It's not usually done like that because there isn't enough distance
between the top of the fret and the fingerboard for the string to
flex enough to produce an effect. Also, it's physically awkward. I
believe that technique is used on sitar, though.
Classical guitarists also have another method of producing vibrato -
they wiggle the string in the direction of its length. That is,
while gripping the, you slightly move your hand back and forth first
toward the bridge, then toward the nut, perpendicular to the fret.
Classical (nylon stringed) guitars have very flexible, stretchy
strings, so this movement will noticeably, audibly vary the pitch.
It doesn't work as well on steel strings, but it's still good for a
subtle vibrato with a different character than the
parallel-to-the-fret technique.
On 09 Apr 2008, "Robert Riddle" <captinlogic@gmail . com > wrote in
alt.guitar.beginner:
> It this done by wiggling the string up and down?
What do you mean "up and down"?
Vibrato is created by varying the length and/or tension on the
string. Think what happens when you turn the tuning pegs - the pitch
goes up or down. If you could turn the knob fast and accurately
enough, you could produce vibrato. The most common way to produce a
similar but more controllable effect by pushing the string along the
length of (that is, parallel to) the fret. This will slightly
increase the distance between the bridge and that string's
point-of-contact with the fret and also increase the string's
tension. The pitch will go up. If you cyclically bend the string
then relax it to it's original position, you'll get vibrato,
similar to a singer's.
> I've heard that it's done by pressure variance on the string,
It's not usually done like that because there isn't enough distance
between the top of the fret and the fingerboard for the string to
flex enough to produce an effect. Also, it's physically awkward. I
believe that technique is used on sitar, though.
Classical guitarists also have another method of producing vibrato -
they wiggle the string in the direction of its length. That is,
while gripping the, you slightly move your hand back and forth first
toward the bridge, then toward the nut, perpendicular to the fret.
Classical (nylon stringed) guitars have very flexible, stretchy
strings, so this movement will noticeably, audibly vary the pitch.
It doesn't work as well on steel strings, but it's still good for a
subtle vibrato with a different character than the
parallel-to-the-fret technique.
Re: vibrato
On 09 Apr 2008, "Robert Riddle" <
captinlogic@gmail . com
> wrote in
alt.guitar.beginner:
> It this done by wiggling the string up and down?
What do you mean "up and down"?
Up and down, as in bending the string up and down. Assuming the guitar is in
standard playing position, body on your right leg and headstock facing left,
the thickerst string is facing toward the ceiling and the thinnest string is
facing toward the floor. Place your finger at whatever string and whatever
fret. Now, move that finger back and forth, or, relative to the guitar, up
and down, so that the string moves back and forth across the fret. Up and
down. I'm not sure how that was unclear.
On 09 Apr 2008, "Robert Riddle" <
captinlogic@gmail . com
> wrote in
alt.guitar.beginner:
> It this done by wiggling the string up and down?
What do you mean "up and down"?
Up and down, as in bending the string up and down. Assuming the guitar is in
standard playing position, body on your right leg and headstock facing left,
the thickerst string is facing toward the ceiling and the thinnest string is
facing toward the floor. Place your finger at whatever string and whatever
fret. Now, move that finger back and forth, or, relative to the guitar, up
and down, so that the string moves back and forth across the fret. Up and
down. I'm not sure how that was unclear.
Re: vibrato
On 09 Apr 2008, "Robert Riddle" <captinlogic@gmail . com > wrote in
alt.guitar.beginner:
> Up and down, as in bending the string up and down. Assuming the
> guitar is in standard playing position, body on your right leg and
> headstock facing left, the thickerst string is facing toward the
> ceiling and the thinnest string is facing toward the floor. Place
> your finger at whatever string and whatever fret. Now, move that
> finger back and forth, or, relative to the guitar, up and down, so
> that the string moves back and forth across the fret. Up and down.
> I'm not sure how that was unclear.
If you don't specify what you're moving in relation to, I could take
"up and down" to mean relative to the earth, to the fretboard, to the
length of the guitar neck, to pitch, etc.
Should I assume that the rest of my message, the pertinent part, was
unclear?
On 09 Apr 2008, "Robert Riddle" <captinlogic@gmail . com > wrote in
alt.guitar.beginner:
> Up and down, as in bending the string up and down. Assuming the
> guitar is in standard playing position, body on your right leg and
> headstock facing left, the thickerst string is facing toward the
> ceiling and the thinnest string is facing toward the floor. Place
> your finger at whatever string and whatever fret. Now, move that
> finger back and forth, or, relative to the guitar, up and down, so
> that the string moves back and forth across the fret. Up and down.
> I'm not sure how that was unclear.
If you don't specify what you're moving in relation to, I could take
"up and down" to mean relative to the earth, to the fretboard, to the
length of the guitar neck, to pitch, etc.
Should I assume that the rest of my message, the pertinent part, was
unclear?
Re: vibrato
I would be curious to know if there is a technical term which can be
used to describe a vibration in volume in such a manner as to be sure
that it will not be mistaken to be a vibration in pitch.
I would be curious to know if there is a technical term which can be
used to describe a vibration in volume in such a manner as to be sure
that it will not be mistaken to be a vibration in pitch.
Re: vibrato
On 09 Apr 2008, Muso <MikeMandaville@aol . com > wrote in
alt.guitar.beginner:
> I would be curious to know if there is a technical term which can be
> used to describe a vibration in volume in such a manner as to be sure
> that it will not be mistaken to be a vibration in pitch.
Vibrato = periodic change in frequency (pitch);
Tremolo = periodic change in amplitude (volume).
On 09 Apr 2008, Muso <MikeMandaville@aol . com > wrote in
alt.guitar.beginner:
> I would be curious to know if there is a technical term which can be
> used to describe a vibration in volume in such a manner as to be sure
> that it will not be mistaken to be a vibration in pitch.
Vibrato = periodic change in frequency (pitch);
Tremolo = periodic change in amplitude (volume).
Re: vibrato
On Wed, 09 Apr 2008 14:07:32 -0500, Robert Riddle wrote:
> It this done by wiggling the string up and down? I've heard that it's
> done by pressure variance on the string, ie, increasing/decreasing the
> pressure used to hold it against the fingerboard, but this just seems to
> make it...rasp, I guess is the word I'm looking for. Wiggling the string
> up and down seems to produce better results, but is this the right way
> of doing it? OR is this another issue where the "whatever works"
> philosophy applies?
Above about the V fret, you can push and pull along the string to tighten
and loosen it.
Below the VI fret, you push and pull across the string. Sometimes you
do it that way higher too, in order to apply vibrato to one of the
notes of a chord.
So there are two "right" ways, but the choice is nevertheless
constrained. daveA
--
email: darnold4@cox . net (put "poisonal" anywhere in subject)
DGT: The very best technical exercises for all guitarists:
* w w w .openguitar . com /dynamic.html. Original easy solos at:
* w w w .openguitar . com . :::=={_o) David Raleigh Arnold
On Wed, 09 Apr 2008 14:07:32 -0500, Robert Riddle wrote:
> It this done by wiggling the string up and down? I've heard that it's
> done by pressure variance on the string, ie, increasing/decreasing the
> pressure used to hold it against the fingerboard, but this just seems to
> make it...rasp, I guess is the word I'm looking for. Wiggling the string
> up and down seems to produce better results, but is this the right way
> of doing it? OR is this another issue where the "whatever works"
> philosophy applies?
Above about the V fret, you can push and pull along the string to tighten
and loosen it.
Below the VI fret, you push and pull across the string. Sometimes you
do it that way higher too, in order to apply vibrato to one of the
notes of a chord.
So there are two "right" ways, but the choice is nevertheless
constrained. daveA
--
email: darnold4@cox . net (put "poisonal" anywhere in subject)
DGT: The very best technical exercises for all guitarists:
* w w w .openguitar . com /dynamic.html. Original easy solos at:
* w w w .openguitar . com . :::=={_o) David Raleigh Arnold
Re: vibrato
David Raleigh Arnold wrote:
> So there are two "right" ways, but the choice is nevertheless
> constrained.
I can achieve vibrato by fretting harder. Push the
string into the fingerboard and relax it a bit.
I can also achieve vibrato by pulling and
relaxing the neck toward or away from my body.
Or by "shaking" the neck as I hold a chord or note.
I can also press on the body of the acoustic guitar,
near the bridge, to achieve vibrato.
I can also press on the "dead" part of the strings
between the nut and the tuner machines.
So I think that brings the possibilities up to six
ways to achieve vibrato.
Lumpy
In Your Ears for 40 Years
w w w .LumpyMusic . com
David Raleigh Arnold wrote:
> So there are two "right" ways, but the choice is nevertheless
> constrained.
I can achieve vibrato by fretting harder. Push the
string into the fingerboard and relax it a bit.
I can also achieve vibrato by pulling and
relaxing the neck toward or away from my body.
Or by "shaking" the neck as I hold a chord or note.
I can also press on the body of the acoustic guitar,
near the bridge, to achieve vibrato.
I can also press on the "dead" part of the strings
between the nut and the tuner machines.
So I think that brings the possibilities up to six
ways to achieve vibrato.
Lumpy
In Your Ears for 40 Years
w w w .LumpyMusic . com
Re: vibrato
I like the vibrato done in the way that's most obvious with
cello players where the finger stays put but the hand rotates
quickly back and forth at the wrist (so the axis of rotation
is between the wrist and the finger, well sort of anyway).
It takes some practice to be able to do it on a guitar.
See : * w w w .youtube . com /watch?v=c7Yc2cp6ekM
Paul P
I like the vibrato done in the way that's most obvious with
cello players where the finger stays put but the hand rotates
quickly back and forth at the wrist (so the axis of rotation
is between the wrist and the finger, well sort of anyway).
It takes some practice to be able to do it on a guitar.
See : * w w w .youtube . com /watch?v=c7Yc2cp6ekM
Paul P
Re: vibrato
On Apr 10, 11:32 am, Paul P <a...@b . com > wrote:
> I like the vibrato done in the way that's most obvious with
> cello players...
As a former violin player, I started doing this by accident. It's not
obvious to me why it works on a fretted instrument like a guitar, but
you're right -- it's another option.
--Cliff (US)
On Apr 10, 11:32 am, Paul P <a...@b . com > wrote:
> I like the vibrato done in the way that's most obvious with
> cello players...
As a former violin player, I started doing this by accident. It's not
obvious to me why it works on a fretted instrument like a guitar, but
you're right -- it's another option.
--Cliff (US)
Re: vibrato
On Thu, 10 Apr 2008 09:17:04 -0700, hcbowman wrote:
> On Apr 10, 11:32 am, Paul P <a...@b . com > wrote:
>> I like the vibrato done in the way that's most obvious with cello
>> players...
>
> As a former violin player, I started doing this by accident. It's not
> obvious to me why it works on a fretted instrument like a guitar, but
> you're right -- it's another option.
>
> --Cliff (US)
We all left out the gearshift. That makes 3 good ways. daveA
--
email: darnold4@cox . net (put "poisonal" anywhere in subject)
DGT: The very best technical exercises for all guitarists:
* w w w .openguitar . com /dynamic.html. Original easy solos at:
* w w w .openguitar . com . :::=={_o) David Raleigh Arnold
On Thu, 10 Apr 2008 09:17:04 -0700, hcbowman wrote:
> On Apr 10, 11:32 am, Paul P <a...@b . com > wrote:
>> I like the vibrato done in the way that's most obvious with cello
>> players...
>
> As a former violin player, I started doing this by accident. It's not
> obvious to me why it works on a fretted instrument like a guitar, but
> you're right -- it's another option.
>
> --Cliff (US)
We all left out the gearshift. That makes 3 good ways. daveA
--
email: darnold4@cox . net (put "poisonal" anywhere in subject)
DGT: The very best technical exercises for all guitarists:
* w w w .openguitar . com /dynamic.html. Original easy solos at:
* w w w .openguitar . com . :::=={_o) David Raleigh Arnold
Re: vibrato
I find this interesting...
I've also 'discovered' that you can vibrato by pressing and releasing the
string, but I've never seen anyone do it this way.
Is it because the traditional way is more visible and 'cooler' ?
-Larry
"Lumpy" <lumpy@digitalcartography . com > wrote in message
news:666otcF2idb19U1@mid.individual . net ...
> David Raleigh Arnold wrote:
>
>> So there are two "right" ways, but the choice is nevertheless
>> constrained.
>
> I can achieve vibrato by fretting harder. Push the
> string into the fingerboard and relax it a bit.
>
> I can also achieve vibrato by pulling and
> relaxing the neck toward or away from my body.
> Or by "shaking" the neck as I hold a chord or note.
>
> I can also press on the body of the acoustic guitar,
> near the bridge, to achieve vibrato.
>
> I can also press on the "dead" part of the strings
> between the nut and the tuner machines.
>
> So I think that brings the possibilities up to six
> ways to achieve vibrato.
>
>
> Lumpy
>
> In Your Ears for 40 Years
> w w w .LumpyMusic . com
>
>
>
I find this interesting...
I've also 'discovered' that you can vibrato by pressing and releasing the
string, but I've never seen anyone do it this way.
Is it because the traditional way is more visible and 'cooler' ?
-Larry
"Lumpy" <lumpy@digitalcartography . com > wrote in message
news:666otcF2idb19U1@mid.individual . net ...
> David Raleigh Arnold wrote:
>
>> So there are two "right" ways, but the choice is nevertheless
>> constrained.
>
> I can achieve vibrato by fretting harder. Push the
> string into the fingerboard and relax it a bit.
>
> I can also achieve vibrato by pulling and
> relaxing the neck toward or away from my body.
> Or by "shaking" the neck as I hold a chord or note.
>
> I can also press on the body of the acoustic guitar,
> near the bridge, to achieve vibrato.
>
> I can also press on the "dead" part of the strings
> between the nut and the tuner machines.
>
> So I think that brings the possibilities up to six
> ways to achieve vibrato.
>
>
> Lumpy
>
> In Your Ears for 40 Years
> w w w .LumpyMusic . com
>
>
>
Re: vibrato
Larry wrote:
> I find this interesting...
>
> I've also 'discovered' that you can vibrato by pressing and releasing
> the string, but I've never seen _anyone_ do it this way.
>
> Is it because the traditional way is more visible and 'cooler' ?
Actually the tiny press finesse looks pretty darn
'cool' when you do it and the guitarists in the
crowd wonder "how'd he do dat?".
Lumpy
In Your Ears for 40 Years
w w w .LumpyMusic . com
Larry wrote:
> I find this interesting...
>
> I've also 'discovered' that you can vibrato by pressing and releasing
> the string, but I've never seen _anyone_ do it this way.
>
> Is it because the traditional way is more visible and 'cooler' ?
Actually the tiny press finesse looks pretty darn
'cool' when you do it and the guitarists in the
crowd wonder "how'd he do dat?".
Lumpy
In Your Ears for 40 Years
w w w .LumpyMusic . com
