Talk:Glissando

What this article calles "true glissandi" should actually be referred to as portamenti. Portamento is defined as a continuous change in pitch. Unfortunately, portamenti are often wrongly called glissandi, which leads to the confusion between the two terms. Among trombonists, they are always refered to as glissandi or "glisses" even though what is played is a portamento. In this article the term "true glissando" should be replaced with portamento and "effective glissando" with just glissando.--Hrothgar137

• Confusion about the origin of the "portamento" term leads to confusing definitions. I tried to help a bit. Uniseek

I think it's better to say the term glissando is simply a more general term than portamento, rather than to say portamenti are "often wrongly called glissandi." The term glissando has a well established usage in referring to both stepped and continuous glides. It's literally just the Italian word for "gliding." So it isn't "wrong" to refer to a continuous glide as a glissando. A quick look at the musical term dictionaries I have handy confirms that. 172.91.107.147 (talk) 23:56, 21 June 2023 (UTC)Reply

all the chromatic tones Maybe this is true on a piano, but on a harp it isn't always. When a harpist slides her finger down the strings, she plays the tones the strings are set to: not all the chromatic tones (theoretically she could but that would mean a ton of quick pedal movements). She plays all the "diatonic" tones to the "key" the harp is in. The tones are not always diatonic in the usual sense because the pedals allow the creation of "keys" with any number of sharps and flats. One commonly used gliss has a B# and an E#: not a real key, but it sounds pretty :) dreamyshade

• Good that you brought this up - it's something I thought about when I wrote the text but later forgot. It's true: neither pianists or harpists play all the chromatic tones. Have to think of a way of reformulating it. Any ideas? --tbackstr

I had a go and ended up completely rewriting it - hope that's OK. I kept all of the good points hopefully, apologies if I over edited anything. - MB

• Yes, it's definitely better this way, thanks. --tbackstr

I agree it's a lot better, but what's a "melodic note"?

A note that constitutes part of the melody, as opposed to an "incidental note"... we probably need a link to an article on melody here. - MB

I thought of one more thing: a very limited true glissando can be played on the harp. It is a pedal slide, and is sometimes used in jazz music, and accidentally other times :). If you play one of the lower strings and immediately move its corresponding pedal, you can sort of get a slide from the original tone up or down a half-step. I know it's a stretch, and doesn't need to be in the article, but it's an interesting thought. dreamyshade

How about what guitar players call a "slide"? The finger holding the string to the fretboard slides up or down the neck, shifting so rapidly to the different tones as to resemble a true glissando. Ed Poor

Quoted from the article - "On a harp, the player slide his finger up or down the strings, quickly playing the separate notes. Wind, brass and fretted stringed instrument players can effect an extremely rapid chromatic scale, giving the same effect." - MMGB

It would be nice if someone could revise the article to indicate the difference (if any) between glissando and portamento. They appear to be similar concepts, but as a non-musician it would be nice if the article explained to me the exact relationship between the two terms. Psychonaut 17:23, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I echo this request. I still worry that "true glissando" is a misnomer; portamento seems more appropriate here (especially without any citations present to declare otherise). Otherwise a clear distinction between true glissandi and portamenti seems necessary. --Adzze 03:16, 16 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

I agree with the above. The paragraph labeled "Glissando vs. Portmento" describes the similarities, and an expert would probably be able to recognize the truths in the paragraph. But a novice like me, who came here seeking clarification can't figure out which is which, or what the key distinctions are. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.229.119.62 (talk) 21:18, 17 June 2008 (UTC)Reply

The difference is, a glissando is a gradual slide between 2 notes, whereas portamento slides as the note changes. Portamento is more like a slur, but with a little bit of a slide; a glissando is just a slide beginning at one pitch and ending at another with a constant change in pitch the whole time.--Veggieburgerfish (talk) 00:06, 21 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

Does this mean that there is no formal difference between a slide on guitar, and a bend on guitar? The former involves running a finger up or down the fretboard from one note, ending at another, while the latter involves pushing a ringing string out to the side, effectively tightening it in a continuous manner to increases the pitch. Both involve the gradual transition from one note to another. Are they thus both glissando? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.225.68.149 (talk) 14:29, 5 September 2010 (UTC)Reply

I'm not sure what Veggieburgerfish is getting at, but the narrower usage of "glissando"- "...the filling in of discrete intermediate pitches on instruments like the piano, harp and fretted strings..."- would describe a slide, while "continuous glissando or portamento" covers bends. Btw, you can sign your name by typing four tildas thus: Sparafucil (talk) 21:28, 5 September 2010 (UTC)Reply

From the article: "On some instruments, a bending of the tone or continuous sliding is not possible (e.g., piano, harp)" It is possible, if you're willing to damage your instrument a little (and most avant-garde composers are). Volunteer Sibelius Salesman 19:39, 13 July 2005 (UTC)Reply

• I removed the reference to fretted unstruments reaching a maximum of three semitones by bending; as any beginning guitarist who has played "Sunshine of Your Love" can tell you, bends of at least four semitones (i.e. two steps) are possible. Deltabeignet 03:10, 23 November 2005 (UTC)Reply

Maybe there should be a reference to glissando in harmonica since it is an essential part of blues harp and most methods of playing harmonica.

The technique of dragging your finger down a guitar's fretboard is called "a slide" and results in what this article calls "effective glissando". The cylindrical object you can use as an alternative to fretting is also called "a slide" and, when moved, results in what this article calls "true glissando" (what I would exclusively call portamento). I don't know if including that info in this article would simply increase the already high levels of confusion (given that, as has been pointed out, the "true glissando" usage recommended by this article isn't universally accepted). Boris B 08:42, 2 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

what is the most painless way to play an effective glissando on a piano? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.169.187.230 (talk) 04:42, 14 March 2007 (UTC).Reply

Use the back of your thumb (The thumbnail). Just press down on the note and slide your hand up or down the keyboard. Make sure to use your thumbnail (or any other fingernail). Any other way will hurt. The Luizer 18:05, 10 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

This article seems really quite confused at the moment. I came trying to find out what the term was and found conflicting information. A visit to grove music online has cleared it up, and now I don't see why for example 'piano' should be under the 'portamento' heading when you can't normally do portamento on a piano. I'd suggest a rewrite... Yaxu 19:57, 2 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

Agreed. Things like this with multiple conflicting definitions need references to clear up the confusion. — Omegatron 18:53, 9 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

The definition for glissando in the Virginia Tech Multimedia Music Dictionary describes the different techniques and results from each without using the term portamento. The definition for portamento does a better job of distinguishing between the two. The dictionary includes pronunciation, apparently recorded by someone with a discernable accent (Italian?); nevertheless, the pronunciation is correct and helpful (in my opinion, anyway).

Both portamento and glissando describe a slide between two notes or pitches. The slide is called a portamento when every tone between two notes is produced. When the slide is limited to sounding individual notes between the two pitches, it is a glissando.

A human voice is capable of producing a portamento. String instruments such as the violin are capable of producing a portamento when the player slides their finger from one pitch to another while drawing the bow across the string. The piano and harp are string instruments that are limited to glissandi. With the exception of a trombone, wind instruments are only capable of glissandi (and that requires mighty fast fingering).

For the sake of clarity, think of a slide between the notes B natural and C natural (mighty short slide); there are tones between the two notes. Instruments that can sound every tone between—voice, string instruments, etc.—create a portamento; instruments limited to playing the two notes themselves and none of the intervening tones—such as a piano—create a glissando.

I see no reason for there to be separate articles for Portamento and Glissando; in order to be informative, each article has to define both terms. Since I'm a "newbie" to this article, I don't feel comfortable placing the Mergefrom and Mergeto templates on the respective pages, Be bold notwithstanding.

Hopefully this was helpful and clarified the differences rather than further confuse the issue.75.58.45.66 17:19, 28 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

I'm not up to merging either, though it seems right to have the main article here. I had a go at a para. == Glissando vs. Portamento == Sparafucil 04:47, 23 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

Actually, judging from the comments later on in this discussion as well as the Portamento article, the portamento is a distinctly vocal technique developed for opera singing, that instruments only use when explicitly attempting to emulate vocal technique. E.g. a trombone glissando is not always a portamento simply because it encounters all intermediate pitches, it must also emulate opera style. I think it belongs in its own article for this reason, since there is an "Opera terms" template at the bottom of it. A merge is probably not a good idea. I do agree with the inclusion of clarifying information in the Glissando article, since the distinction is more applicable to instrumentalists (who, in aggregate, are capable of both techniques) than vocalists (who find glissandos very difficult and unusual). Publicly Visible (talk) 21:00, 7 September 2009 (UTC)Reply

I just wanted to add an example of what I think is a glissando on piano. Glissando is used repeatedly throughout the song Finally by CeCe Peniston. The first occurrence is around the 0:30 mark. Universal Basic Outcome (talk) 22:11, 2 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

To make a distinction between "glissando" and "portamento" it simply isn't enough just to go and look the words up in a dictionary, because the two terms are highly disputed even amongst the authors of dictionaries.

I find it useful to go back to the origin of the word "portamento". It was formerly applied only to singing and indicates "the carrying of the voice" from one tone to an other which was meant as a special form of legato-technique.
When a singer changes from one tone to an other (change of frequencies) without stopping the flow of the breath he or she has no choice but to slide through all the frequencies between the first and the second tone. Singers try normally to make this slide inaudible and thus give the impression of two tones being linked very closely (legato).
This is no problem as long as they don't change the register of their voice. But if they have to, then the whole thing gets much more complex and they run the risk of losing sound quality as well as volume (I am sorry of my description being not more detailed but singing is such a complex function of the human body that it can certainly not be fully described in an article like this.).
The solution of this problem is the "carrying of the voice" ("portamento") which basically means that the progress of changing between two tones is slowed down to give the singer more control of all the parameters she or he has to change together with the change of frequency. If the "portamento" is done correctly you will hear at the end of a tone a short slide to the frequency of the next one (mostly upwards, but also downwards). The portamento will be applied before the next syllable is to be pronounced and normally also reaches the target tone before the pronunciation of this syllable (because that is an other thing to help maintaining sound quality and volume).
So the idea of a portamento is to give two tones in legato the maximum beauty (as it is understood in belcanto-style).
If one tries to apply this idea to other instruments than the human voice, it would mean:
1. Hold a tone as long as possible
2. Shortly before the change to the next tone use the tones in between whilst maintaining sound quality and volume
3. "Touch down" on the target tone before the beat by marking it a little bit on the beat

If a portamento effect is wanted on the piano it would be best to play a marked apoggiatura consisting of the tone you are about to leave before the target tone rather than to break your fingers in an attempt to make a glissando.

"Glissando" means to glide from one tone to an other by using all the available tones in between. The kind of glissando you are able to produce is determined by the limitations of your instrument. The reason the term is often mixed up with the "portamento" is that one uses indeed a little "glissando" when executing a portamento but only as a part of a much more complex procedure. The term "glissando" sets the focus on the movement between two tones and there are many ways of executing a "glissando" including the possibility that the tones at the beginning and the end are of no musical importance at all, which is absolutely against the idea of the portamento. Of course singers can produce a "glissando" too. --Uniseek 11:46, 10 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

I am very confused by what the article says about harp glissandos involving an arpeggio. What confuses me is the notes given: B, C♭, D, E♯, F, G♯, A♭. Aren't B and C♭ the same note? What about E♯ and F, and G♯ and A♭? Someone the Person 23:18, 14 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

Technically, no. Although they do sound the same, and in the western civilization's system of mean temperment, (e.g. how we tune our instruments) the notes have the same wavelength, the notes B and Cb are given because it is more correct to write this way. In musical notation in the written work, it is preferred that when giving a list of pitches, as above, that it is written diatonically, or in order. Otherwise, the list would look like this: B B D F F Ab Ab. These notes make up the B°7 chord, and an arpeggio is a broken up chord. The notes are different because a Cb is just that, a C lowered 1/2 of a step. It just happens to be the same note because of our tuning. In this instance, we have to think about the note Cb in relation to c, from whence the tone is derived. The person is just following conventional musical theory rules when writing notes out for printing. I will agree however that the section needs clean-up, I'll see waht I can do. Thenextstephensondheim1 20:29, 18 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

This is a harp-specific spelling convention, different to most other instruments. There are 7 strings per octave, all of which can be raised or lowered by pedals, allowing the diminished seventh chord B-D-F-Ab to be played without skipping over any strings. Sparafucil 07:45, 20 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

What, how, why, and where does this article need additional citations? Hyacinth (talk) 02:39, 3 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

Apart from the one claim marked a needing a source, the entire section "'Continuous glissando' or portamento" lacks citations. This is also a major offender in the self-contradiction problem (see next section).—Jerome Kohl (talk) 03:52, 3 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

Why does the "'Continuous glissando' or portamento" section need citations, or what in it does? Citations may simply help describe a contradiction, not eliminate it, though I guess that would take it out of our hands and put it in those of the sources cited. Hyacinth (talk) 09:16, 3 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

Tag removed. Hyacinth (talk) 02:46, 18 January 2012 (UTC)Reply

How does this article appear to contradict itself and how should it be cleaned up? Hyacinth (talk) 02:40, 3 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

For once, this was a banner that I placed myself, so I have a fairly good idea why it is there. First, the article says that glissando and portamento cannot be distinguished, then it goes on at some length trying to make this difference clear. The corresponding article on Portamento does not help a lot, either.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 03:49, 3 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

It seems to me standard usage is contradictory and it isnt the job of (yet another) encyclopedia to fix things. The addition to the lede of "...performed or considered as continuous" was problematic, so I've tried again. Sparafucil (talk) 21:51, 5 September 2010 (UTC)Reply

I think your change to the lede is a distinct improvement. It is very true that "standard usage" is contradictory, but that wasn't what I meant when I said this article contradicts itself. It is of course perfectly legitimate to explain that there are contradictions in usage, but it is quite another thing to say in one paragraph that chalk and cheese cannot be distinguished, and then follow it up with a paragraph explaining how the distinction should be made.

FWIW, I have been trying to track down the history of this terminology and, much to my surprise, have discovered that neither "portamento" nor "glissando" have an entry in the first edition of Grove (1878–1899). The earliest citation for "glissando" in the OED is from 1873, and refers exclusively to piano technique. Three years later, Stainer and Barrett's Dictionary of Musical Terms already presents the two possibilities of a rapid series of discrete pitches (piano) and continuous glide (violin), though admittedly their description of the violin technique is vague ("a rapid slur"). "Portamento", on the other hand, is found in English as early as 1771 (in Charles Burney's Present State Music France & Italy), though he does not define it. When exactly the term "portamento" started to be applied to a piano half-staccato is not so clear. The OED's earliest citation for this sense is from 1938, but Heinrich Schenker already discusses the term in the first volume of his Kontrapunkt (1910) as if it were already long in common use in German, at least.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 22:19, 5 September 2010 (UTC)Reply

You mean interchangable use of portamento and portato? I suppose some of this should (hint..) be making its way into the namespace... Sparafucil (talk) 20:12, 7 September 2010 (UTC)Reply

That may be what is meant, but I am neither a pianist nor an historian of piano technique. I don't understand what you mean by a "namespace".—Jerome Kohl (talk) 20:44, 7 September 2010 (UTC)Reply

I meant the article proper, though experienced WP readers probably know to check the talk pages for these nuggets. I just put portato in the see also section of portamento; maybe that's good enough for now... Sparafucil (talk) 04:07, 18 January 2012 (UTC)Reply

Some work as described here, by moving the bridge; but others, like the Bigby and similar, operate by moving a roller to which the strings are attached. Wschart (talk) 13:53, 14 December 2013 (UTC)Reply

After reading the whole article, I wrote the second paragraph, trying to provide a scientific foundation for the rest of the article. In the edit description, I too-concisely referred to the article as "a mess", which really needs clarification.

I'm only an amateur, although my father was Nicholas Bessaraboff (whose first name is frequently misspelled according to French usage, even in the award intended to honor him!!). I'd welcome editing to provide more rigorous wording, if such is needed.

Regarding "mess", the article seems to implicitly reveal a lack of education in musical acoustics and specific topics in physics. I've been an amateur recorder player for country dancing, even being paid a few times for half of a very few Playford balls in NYC, some decades ago. However, mostly as an independent scholar, have taught myself musical acoustics, and studied (among others) Juan G. Roederer's book on psychophysics, and the late Arthur Benade's _Horns, Strings, and Harmony_, if I recall his title correctly. Having a foot in both camps, I have profound respect for musicians, and sympathize with their struggles to pull together their own points of view in the article and Talk page.

A related topic is the mess regarding vibrato (FM!) vs. tremolo (AM!). (I wonder about pipe organ tremulants -- a bit of both, likely much more loudness than frequency variation, at a guess.)

Best regards, Nikevich 18:42, 1 March 2015 (UTC) (Signed in, for a change; perhaps login status should always be clear when starting an edit)

Welcome to Wikipedia. It is a strange and wondrous place, with many an unexpected quirk. While I generally agree with your assessment of this article and welcome your additions, one of the fundamental requirements on Wikipedia is that reliable sources be used to verify all but the most self-evident claims. I have tagged your additions accordingly, but I do not want you to think this is meant in any way as hostile to your intent. If you do not have any suitable sources immediately to hand, then other editors may be able to supply them. You mention Roederer and Benade (and you do recall his title correctly), which no doubt will supply some of the needed material.

There is also the fact that the term "glissando" is first and foremost a musical term, and only comes under the scrutiny of acousticians because of its use by bumbling, unscientific-minded musicians. Nevertheless, both views should be represented, and it is always amusing to watch scientists trying to make tidy sense of the terminological mess we musicians leave lying about.

The matter of vibrato vs tremolo is really a side issue for this article, but you should be aware that these terms are not cut-and-dried so far as musicians are concerned (for acousticians, this may be an entirely different matter). For example, on the violin and similar bowed string instruments, there are two distinct effects, both of which are referred to as "tremolo". One is a rapid alternation between two notes more than a whole tone apart (like a wide trill, and sometimes called "fingered tremolo"), the other is a reiteration on one note made by rapidly reversing the direction of the bow (sometimes called "bowed tremolo"). Vibrato, similarly, is produced on different instruments in different ways, and in the case of vocal vibrato there are differing opinion about whether it is primarily the frequency or the amplitude that is modulated (both are necessarily involved, for reasons of physiology of the vocal tract).—Jerome Kohl (talk) 21:46, 1 March 2015 (UTC)Reply

The word "slide" occurs about 4 times in this article, but none of these is a link to slide (music), and no explanation is given about their difference. I think that would be helpful. User:Haraldmmueller 16:39, 16 March 2023 (UTC)Reply