At tonight's Prom, Roger Norrington the conductor once again affirmed his view that vibrato should not be used by string players unless especially called for by the composer. In this case, he was conducting a vibrato free performance of Mahler's 9th symphony. He says that extensive use of vibrato by string players was only introduced in the early part of the 20th Century. Is he right?
John, I think he is right, BUT...
I'll give you a quote by John Quinn, reviewing a concert from last years Three Choirs Festival, Norrington conducting the Philharmonia Orchestra in Elgar's Violin Concerto:
'Why didn't composers and conductors resist the spread of vibrato among orchestral payers in the first decades of the last century? Could it have been that they recognised an improvement when they heard it?'
The review is worth reading in full:
http://www.musicweb-international.com/SandH/2010/Jul-Dec10/three_choirs1008.htm (http://www.musicweb-international.com/SandH/2010/Jul-Dec10/three_choirs1008.htm)
I am in no way against applying historically informed performance practice but one should be careful. I think Norrington is overstepping.
I think vibrato first started becoming a fixture after the generation of violinists (and, I suppose other string players) taught by Wieniawski started to teach in musical academia. His school of violin playing was considered innovative for its use of vibrato.
I encourage everyone to read a blog discussion on this topic by Stephen Hough.
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/culture/stephenhough/100046034/quaver-or-not-should-orchestras-use-vibrato/ (http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/culture/stephenhough/100046034/quaver-or-not-should-orchestras-use-vibrato/)
And for a real dust-up, including actual scholarship complete with a vigorously argued "Norrington's Stupid Mahler 9th" --
http://www.classicstoday.com/features/vibratocomposite.asp (http://www.classicstoday.com/features/vibratocomposite.asp)
David Hurwitz has never been one to beat around the bush. Not for tender sensibilities.
So Norrington's right and everybody else, including those who knew Mahler, e.g. Bruno Walter, is wrong? Not a chance...
Generally speaking, I like Norrington's approach in the Beethoven symphonies (very much) and earlier works - also Schumann - and I'm prepared to go along with it in some Wagner because of the clarity of texture he produces. I felt, however, that the lack of string vibrato in last night's Mahler 9th was a mistake. I just don't think it was the sort of sound Mahler intended.
Yes, I also very much like RN's Schubert 9. The problem comes with the inability to sustain long lines in later music if there is no vibrato at all. It's almost as if the string section runs out of collective puff...
That's it precisely, Alan.
Its just changing fashions, dressed up as "good taste"; cf. "heavy"/"inappropriate" rubato in pianism ,but just listen to Reinecke playing Schumann(on piano roll) or Horowitz/Ponti; styles change; and critics churn out their hegemonic hierarchy of "appropriate" style, as they do of composers,(to the detriment of a lot of OUR favourites).Steve
I think Hough made some lucid and convincing points pertaining to string play with modern instruments that clearly contra-indicate Norrington's effort to wipe out vibrato in Romantic style music. I'm fine with no vibrato on period instruments in Classical era repertoire. Listening to my wife practice and play cello, I have come more and more to agree with Hough and Hurwitz, that playing Romantic style music on steel strings without vibrato is just plain unmusical and ugly on the ears. To me, the transition from gut to steel strings necessitates more vibrato in performance technique.
If Roger Norrington is right and I feel his views are a matter of taste, then only instruments of the period that the music was written should be used and gut strings where appropriate. Wind instruments of the period would also have to comply as this can also affect the sound and where singers may be involved, no mikes. There should be no spotlighting of solo instruments sound wise either. All metronome markings should be observed particularly when Beethoven's music is played. I note that Norrington does not adhere to this. It is all subjective. Oh! for the days of Handel with a chorus of a thousand, it sounded much better!
It seems that everyone here has hit the nail on the head. I, for one, hadn't taken into account the move from gut to steel strings.
Mind you, I must admit that some unintentional vibrato, amongst other things, probably came into my own playing due to nervousness when I took my Grade 2 'Cello exam earlier this year (at the age of 80!).
Anyhow, I reckon it would be nice to hear various orchestral works played occasionally on authentic instruments dating from the time of their composition. One other thought: what should a present day conductor do with a modern orchestra where the strings play habitually play vibrato where, as in Raff's Lenor Symphony, the composer specifies vibrato for a certain passage?
Lastly, I must humbly apologise to Sir Roger Norrington for de-knighting him.
QuoteOh! for the days of Handel with a chorus of a thousand, it sounded much better!
In Vienna those days were already well underway by the end of the 1780s.
Thanks, Amphissa, for those links. A weak point in Mr Hurwitz's heroic effort is the unstated assumption in its opening pages that performing practices for soloists tell us something about performing traditions amongst the semi-professional/semi-amateur civic orchestras of 19th-century Europe. We must be careful not to generalize too broadly -- which is also my issue with Norrington's brand of "authenticity."
Last year I spent the better part of a day comparing a dozen or so performances of Schumann Symphony 2, going through movement by movement. Haven't done that kind of thing much, and it was a real ear-opener for me. The recordings and performances had many more differences than I would have expected. In this company, the Norrington CD, which I had previously listened to sympathetically, stood out as a recording made under duress, like a symphony in boot camp.
I'm not a Norrington fan. I think he's trying to find a niche for himself and appoint himself the expert. And I think he's wrong concerning Mahler. When you look at the whole of music history and performances, it's been a slow, evolutionary quest for more beautiful sound (at least until the electric guitar was invented). All instruments have evolved and the playing technic along with it. Perhaps string players 100 years ago used less or even no vibrato, but then they also used a lot of portamento which today sounds really odd, sentimental, sloppy, and even cheesy. Orchestras today play far better in tune, far more rythmically precise than they did not that long ago. Does Norrington want to go back to that? It's authentic. Norrington may have been a pioneer but I think saner, more musical solutions have been found.
I personally love the sound a good orchestra makes when playing without a vibrato. Much clearer, purer, cleaner sound.
I have worked with Norrington on several occasions - both with modern- and period-instrument orchestras. On the most part, I have found him a refreshing and invigorating musician who makes people THINK about the music. I listened to his Mahler 9 twice on consecutive days. I found that sometimes I liked the leanness of sound, while at others I felt it detracted from the music. One size fits all? I don't think so.
These things are never simply 'black and white' - one needs the greys in between to make complete musical sense. Vibrato is not so new - the great Baroque violin masters such as Biber, Corelli, Vivaldi and Locatelli used vibrato, albeit as something of a special effect. It seems to have become much less common during the Classical period and was revitalised in the mid-19th century.
Stephen Hough (ironically perhaps for a pianist!) makes a very good point in pointing-out the differences in the way modern steel and synthetic strings behave in contrast with their gut precursors. I think Norrington makes three fundamental errors:
1) He adopts the 'black and white', 'all or nothing' approach to vibrato
2) His historical information seems to be incomplete and selectively chosen
3) He tries to apply 19th-century techniques on 21st-century instruments, equipment and sensibilities
I sometimes wonder if Norrington is simply trying to play 'Devil's advocate' and to be controversial just for the sake of it. If he is, it's a great shame because I think he has a VAST amount to offer the musical world with his thought-provoking performances. If only he'd explore a little more grey...
David Popper is said to have employed a continuous vibrato. In Stephen De'ak's biography of Popper, he includes some criticism from a concert early in his career for this very reason.
QuoteApparently, in mentioning "soulful warmth in singing passages" [in a review of the concert], the critic stimulated a complaint to the editor in the form of an article expressing dislike for Popper's use of the vibrato (which had previously been sparingly employed, but was in a process of evolution and being cultivated increasingly by cellists). ["It is known that the famous cellist Piatti used vibrato very seldom and in only very expressive passages."]
The critic answered this article in March, and the objecting correspondent made further reply in the November issue. The critic's answer and the final objection are shown below:
"With regards to the violoncello virtuoso Mr. David Popper: the author of said article would have done better not to burden the excellent artist nor the 'nerves of the listeners' with the result of his own lack of pertinent understanding. The Leipzig musicians who were present at the concert--and they were assembled in great numbers and among them out best names--attest to Mr. Popper that none of the expressed criticism had any real foundation. His tone is excellent, and one could not discover any trace of the intolerable 'vibrating' of some virtuosos; the manner of presentation which he applied and which is necessary for the required warmth of the tone was only the shaking (or oscillating) vibrato movement as it is legitimately taught." [Neue Zeitschrift für Musik, March, 1863].
"... Next, objection is raised to our statement that Mr. David Popper had tried the nerves of his listeners by continuous vibrato and it is claimed that the vibrato of the gentleman had been the 'shaking (or oscillating) movement as it is legitimately taught.' Well, we will not insist on the term: we did not, thus, perceive a single tone from Mr. D. Popper to which--the tempo permitting--he did not apply his 'legitimately taught vibrato movement'; if the critic of the 'Neue Zeitschrift für Musik' found this to his liking it only proves that he no longer has any sense for a natural homogeneous tone and the his hearing organs have been infected by a sickness of taste which at the moment is indeed the fashion; perhaps he will even go a little further and try to apply a legitimately executed trill to each note of a vocal piece as had already happened." [NZfM, November 1863].
I have seen other opinions expressed on vibrato dating back to the Eighteenth Century. This, however, does not say much about orchestras. I look forward to reading the Classics Today articles later.
I forget where I got this from, but I was under the impression that Auer and his students had something to do with promulgating the nonstop use of continuous passionate vibrato. Does anyone know if there's anything to that?
I just downloaded the first of the four parts of the Classics Today articles on orchestra vibrato. It's 118 pages! And that's just the first part.