Notating Vibrato for Strings

I know that "senza vibrato" can be inserted into a score, directing the players to play without vibrato, but I would like to know exactly how it is implemented: is it an expression, which is written in italics below the staff, or a technique, which is written in normal script above the staff? I have a feeling it's a technique, but I'm not sure, since it's not included in Finale's expression tool (which handles bot expressions and techniques).

Also, how does one notate that the player should use vibrato as normal? I would assume it would be "con vibrato," but I don't play a bowed string instrument, so I can't be certain.

I am, at this point, assuming that I will have to create my own expression or technique text, since it is not included in Finale's list of techniques or expressions. If there's a way to insert it into a score in Finale that I'm missing, however, please inform me.

If you have any examples of this notation being used in a score, I would be most appreciative if you would please post a link to them.

Thank you. :toothygrin:

In your terminology, it's a technique. Place it in the score above the staff in the same font you would use for 'arco'. 'senza vibrato' and 'con vibrato' are both correct; if you want to use English, use 'no vibrato' and 'with vibrato' or 'normal vibrato'.

Yeah. And you could even get more detailed by stating things like "molto vibrato" or "poco vibrato" (or English equivalents). Some composers even used graphical notation (usually wavy lines) to indicate different vibrato speeds and amplitudes.

..."molto vibrato" or "poco vibrato" (or English equivalents)...

In reality, though, when you start delving into this, it ceases at some point to be musical and becomes just an effect. So... use alterations sparingly if you want it to really mean anything.

It doesn't help that modern string players sometimes get stuck in the "molto tasteless, affected vibrato" mode.

Thanks.

IMHO messing with a string player's vibrato is a dodgy idea with the exception of directing zero vibrato ("senza vib."). Otherwise just put expressivo or appassionato & trust to their instincts :D

Well, try writing "espressivo" in a relatively "modern-looking" piece and maybe even with performers specialising in contemporary music - it often just manages to leave them completely stumped. In 20th century music there has been so strong movements away from "romantic" performance practice that such performers automatically assume that you can impossibly mean vibrato when writing "espressivo" - even if that's exactly how they would execute it if they saw it in a 19th century piece.

And many performers don't even trust their own instincts when it comes to contemporary music - understandably so, since there are no norms to base your "instincts" on. "Espressivo" may refer to vibrato, but it can also be about rubato, dynamic changes, even portamento etc., and with no standard performance practice, who is to know what a contemporary composer really means? So personally, I wouldn't rely too much on instincts but clearly state what you want.

"heavy, narrow vibrato," "light, wide vibrato," for example.

Actually something like this as an instruction doesn't really make too much sense. There are basically two variables in string vibrato, amplitude and speed. So heavy and wide are really defining the same parameter.

Not true.

Actually something like this as an instruction doesn't really make too much sense. There are basically two variables in string vibrato, amplitude and speed. So heavy and wide are really defining the same parameter.

Maybe also/or words fast/slow. At the end of the day, a performance note at the beginning of a piece can clarify these t'ings.

I have found so far it best to just indicate "more vibrato" . If you want less, "pale", without expression, or even senza vibrato will have the player reduce the vibrato. Note - it is impractical to ask a player to produce a tone without ANY vibrato.

I have found so far it best to just indicate "more vibrato" . If you want less, "pale", without expression, or even senza vibrato will have the player reduce the vibrato. Note - it is impractical to ask a player to produce a tone without ANY vibrato.

Just takes discipline. If a composer truly wants absolutely no vibrato then they need to make that super, super clear.

Yeah, if "no vibrato" isn't clear enough, you can always use "straight tone".

Good string players should get the hint, though.

Note - it is impractical to ask a player to produce a tone without ANY vibrato.

It can be used for contrast or as a special effect in the strings quite well, I've found (through a performance of one of my works for string ensemble in which the players played a few sections without vibrato).

use italian language :) its much better in music scores...

anyway... 'senza arco' is a much more interesting expression :)

use italian language :) its much better in music scores...

anyway... 'senza arco' is a much more interesting expression :)

Without bowing?

dont steal ;) http://gollam12.uw.hu/muzsika/jatek.mp3 ( i hope you can look at it ) - my solo cello piece starts like that.. sounds good on cello. if you dont use the bow, just your fingers, and hit the string like that, that note will sound, but there will be a crash-sound too :) like col legno...

(of course you can use it.. this 'don't steal' thing was only a joke (its a common (advanced) technique) but tell noone!)

(look at penderecki string quartets, if you hate me :) )

On 7/26/2009 at 4:30 PM, composerorganist said:

I have found so far it best to just indicate "more vibrato" . If you want less, "pale", without expression, or even senza vibrato will have the player reduce the vibrato. Note - it is impractical to ask a player to produce a tone without ANY vibrato.

 

So I could see this point being made asking a 'player' maybe, but not a violinist or orchestral string player to use no vibrato, because I agree, the inexperienced player will definitely use vibrato due to 'monkey mind' and habit, rather than reading what is on the page to be expressed to create the music and the feel.  

If it states N.V. -- which, I'm a violinist. Truly. I would hope you spell that out as violin is not 1924 instrument but rather one of the oldest... in the world. So most of us are taught, music language and not modern (American) language for violin vernacular. This is not really an opinion. 
And for a great laugh. I googled N.V. and it gave me 'the great State of Nevada' (2024 google) The other day. I knew what N.V. meant in a Worship Orchestra Rehearsal... me being a violinist did NOT play vibrato, because, the composer is going for a certain musical feeling, which can be defined in the overall piece when you listen to ALL of it, it's universal so everyone can somewhat agree that music will usually lean a typical common way of feeling and expression. Not by single words. This is music we are talking about and not dictionary concise definitions. Defining anything with such long windedness (which I am doing now, but I love violin more than food so here is my two cents) cannot be done, truly, because music, by definition goes beyond definition and is expressed from the human heart, mind, spirit, body, etc. 

When the music (which I did not write) calls for N.V. -- there is a very good reason it is there whether I agree with it or not. That makes sense to me that I first understand that and truly try to understand the idea behind the notation and what the composer is asking for to create the overall effect with the entire orchestra. It matters. With the violin. Every tiny stance, breath, thought matters. That's why we get a paradox from the greatest players being 'free' of all thought by studying many hours a day.

Love the discussion. I could talk violin for years...
Nevermind, already have. millenia.