Buddy vs. Curly vs. Pete

Brint Hannay · Post by **Brint Hannay** » 18 May 2009 9:16 pm

This is "off-topic" from a recent topic, "Buddy vs. Curly", but since Pete Drake has come up a couple of times there now:

If "simple" is no good and "fancy" is what matters in your world view, then Pete Drake may be a laughable bum in your eyes. If "resonates emotionally" is what matters to you, he may be one of the good ones.

Hey Forumites, what matters to you, feeling or technique?

Per Berner · Post by **Per Berner** » 18 May 2009 10:08 pm

Feeling wins every time. Of course, good technique is sometimes needed to be able to convey those feelings.

David Doggett · Post by **David Doggett** » 19 May 2009 7:06 am

Yeah, feeling is more important than fireworks. Pete Drake did some great classic pedal steel.

Post by **Dave Mudgett** » 19 May 2009 7:08 am

Hey Forumites, what matters to you, feeling or technique?

Both. I'm interpreting your "or" as the regular-or OR, not the exclusive-or XOR.

Even if you mean exclusive-or, I think forcing a hard choice between feeling and technique is a bit of a false dilemma, since they are emphatically not mutually exclusive. In fact, to me, each requires the other. I think technique without feeling is vapid, but also that feeling without a reasonable level of technique seriously limits the range of feeling that can be expressed and the quality of that conveyance.

In the initial setup, comparing Buddy/Curly and Pete, you're comparing extreme virtuosity with solid technique plus a very populist-accessible style. Which I would prefer would depend entirely on the context of the playing. When I think about the important work of all of them that I'm familiar with, it's not obvious to me that changing what was played would "improve" the result, in that context.

No doubt many people have no trouble making a purely exclusive choice between these two concepts. Not me.

David Doggett · Post by **David Doggett** » 19 May 2009 7:28 am

Well, yeah, if you can have both, I wish I did. If I had to choose one or the other, I'd go with feeling.

Donny Hinson · Post by **Donny Hinson** » 19 May 2009 8:04 am

If "simple" is no good and "fancy" is what matters in your world view, then Pete Drake may be a laughable bum in your eyes. If "resonates emotionally" is what matters to you, he may be one of the good ones.

I think that's an oversimplification, because both Buddy and Curly played with great feeling and emotion, too. The key issues here, IMHO, are larger, and they include playing "commercially", having a good imagination, and (most importantly) having a style that sells!

You simply can't underestimate the power of style. No one could argue that Johnny Cash or Bob Dylan could hold a candle to singers like Larry Gatlin, Rex Allen Jr., Gary Morris, John Berry, or John Starnes when it came to real "singing chops". But Cash and Dylan have outsold (enormously) those aforementioned "singers with the golden throats". And THAT'S what style can do.

Brint Hannay · Post by **Brint Hannay** » 19 May 2009 8:42 am

I definitely didn't mean to imply that feeling and technique are mutually exclusive. And I most certainly didn't mean to imply that I thought Buddy and Curly don't play with feeling!! It just bugs me that some musicians get into a mindset of considering degree of technical accomplishment a yardstick for judging the quality of a musician. That is, in my personal view, if you have a virtuoso who plays with great feeling and a simpler, less technically skilled musician who plays with great feeling, the virtuoso isn't better than the other--they're both great musicians. (I'm not speaking here about any particular individuals.)

I just happened to have recently listened to some music that Pete Drake played on and appreciated his playing when I came upon the references to him in the other thread, and was reminded of other comments I've seen that treat Pete as someone who "wasn't very good" or deserving of success.

Barry Blackwood · Post by **Barry Blackwood** » 19 May 2009 12:14 pm

Dave M. said:

I think technique without feeling is vapid, but also that feeling without a reasonable level of technique seriously limits the range of feeling that can be expressed and the quality of that conveyance.

Exactly. In a nutshell then, I believe technique enhances "feeling."

Brint Hannay · Post by **Brint Hannay** » 19 May 2009 2:26 pm

"Technique" can be looked at in different ways. I take the liberty of lifting something John Fox said in another thread, because I can't say it any better:
John Fox wrote:

Expression of feeling, refined articulation and phrasing with rhythmic intensity, dynamic control, intonation, and other aspects of musical beauty are the critical areas of "musical advancement," as I see it.

That, to me, is a good description of truly indispensable technique, that which enhances the ability to express feeling. The other sense of "technique" is speed, intricacy, and athletic difficulty. That's what I'm saying is optional, to me as a listener. I enjoy intellectual stimulation in music and appreciating skill, but music can still get a top rating from me if it doesn't have those things.

Tom Quinn · Post by **Tom Quinn** » 19 May 2009 3:40 pm

Danger! Danger! I think Buddy plays with tremendous feeling. I would never disparage Pete Drake's playing; he only played exactly what needed to be recorded to make the song perfect.

Herb Steiner · Post by **Herb Steiner** » 19 May 2009 4:12 pm

I would like to add the comments of another significant session player of Pete's era, who said to me, while discussing this very topic

"Pete played appropriately to the song, and he had excellent 'people skills.'"

Folks like working with other folks that make them feel comfortable and part of their "team." Pete Drake excelled in those characteristics.

Tom Quinn · Post by **Tom Quinn** » 19 May 2009 4:43 pm

Anyone who listens to "Car Talk" knows how they confusticate their "Puzzlers." I'm going to do the same here, so not as to offend:

There is that great old and well known story about how one steel player picked a hot lick in front of Pete and said, bet ya can't do that.

To which Pete pulled out a big, fat roll of 100-dollar bills from his pocket and replied, bet you can't do this...

Donny Hinson · Post by **Donny Hinson** » 19 May 2009 5:16 pm

Brint Hannay wrote:That is, in my personal view, if you have a virtuoso who plays with great feeling and a simpler, less technically skilled musician who plays with great feeling, the virtuoso isn't better than the other--they're both great musicians.

Well, I see what you're saying. But using that logic, it makes it hard to justify anyone struggling to be a virtuoso. I mean, if a virtuso with a certain degree of feeling is no better than someone less skilled with the same degree of feeling, it sure seems like the virtuoso wasted a lot of time practicing, doesn't it?

I rather think that this type of thinking may come about because of people simply not being objective, because they like someone who's not as skilled as well as (or better than) someone else who's very skilled. Or, because the less skilled one makes more money or is more popular, they rationalize that the less skilled player is "just as good" as the very skilled one. Sorry, I can't buy that. I respect your opinion, but I disagree with it.

...and was reminded of other comments I've seen that treat Pete as someone who "wasn't very good" or deserving of success.

Well, unfortunately, technical ability often has no correlation to fame and success. Some very skilled people remain relative unknowns, while lesser skilled people have millions of fans, and are making tons of money. Timing? Luck? Exposure? Style? Financial backing? Fad or fancy? FIHP? There's dozens of reasons why that sort of stuff happens.

Herb Steiner · Post by **Herb Steiner** » 19 May 2009 5:26 pm

"Feeling" can be achieved at a lower technical level, one of lesser educational or physical skill, than "virtuosity," because "feeling" is not as easily quantified as is technical skill. "Feeling" is a subjective appraisal, whereas "chops"... the ability to arbitrarily conceive and play most any note or sequence of notes that comes to mind... are more easily recognized.

IOW, both Pete Drake and Doug Jernigan could/can play with "feeling," but Pete's version of "Black Mountain Rag"... if he had one

... would most probably have been unrecognizable.

As a side note, "tasteful" could be applied to a player of any skill level, but to use the adjective "tasteless" for a player implies a higher level of technical proficiency. You have to have chops to be a tasteless player; otherwise, you're just "bad."

Chris LeDrew · Post by **Chris LeDrew** » 19 May 2009 5:58 pm

Donald Fagan once fielded a comment on the polished sound of Steely Dan records by saying something to this effect: "Learning the part perfectly gives you the freedom to explore the feel." I always found this to be a significant, logical assertion - which ties in with what some are saying here about technique enhancing feel.

I think Dylan caught some really good stuff by keeping first takes, but he also produced some duds. One extreme is to be polished without feel; the other is to be too sloppy in the search for that inspired take.

If we're talking about resonating emotionally with pedal steel, maybe we should be talking about Jimmy Day, Lloyd Green and John Hughey. Buddy, Curly and Pete are all outstanding players, but are not the first to come to mind when talking about "emotional" playing, as such. Just my modest opinion.

Brint Hannay · Post by **Brint Hannay** » 19 May 2009 8:45 pm

Donny Hinson wrote:Well, I see what you're saying. But using that logic, it makes it hard to justify anyone struggling to be a virtuoso. I mean, if a virtuso with a certain degree of feeling is no better than someone less skilled with the same degree of feeling, it sure seems like the virtuoso wasted a lot of time practicing, doesn't it?

I don't think so. Since the hypothetical grants that both play with the same degree of feeling, it's just a question of people being different. The virtuoso was motivated to develop the skill set that would express his nature best, while a different skill set suited the other.

Barry Blackwood · Post by **Barry Blackwood** » 20 May 2009 7:05 am

There is that great old and well known story about how one steel player picked a hot lick in front of Pete and said, bet ya can't do that.

To which Pete pulled out a big, fat roll of 100-dollar bills from his pocket and replied, bet you can't do this...

Tom, what is the point you are trying to make here with this anecdote as it relates to this discussion?

Brint Hannay · Post by **Brint Hannay** » 20 May 2009 9:10 am

That same anecdote (sounds probably apocryphal to me) has been cited a couple of times in the other thread (about "popularity"). I don't see where it has any relevance here.

Donny Hinson wrote:

I rather think that this type of thinking may come about...Or, because the less skilled one makes more money or is more popular, they rationalize that the less skilled player is "just as good" as the very skilled one...

I suppose this was in response to my reference to

comments I've seen that treat Pete as someone who "wasn't very good" or deserving of success.

That was my only mention of "success", and I think everything else I've said here makes it clear that fame or fortune has nothing to do with how my "type of thinking may come about".

The rest of Donny's statement is more to the point:

I rather think that this type of thinking may come about because of people simply not being objective, because they like someone who's not as skilled as well as (or better than) someone else who's very skilled.

Yes! I plead guilty to valuing the subjective aspects of music more than the objective ones. (Please note that I said "more than", not "instead of.") That's my point. The subjective is what draws me to music, and makes it more fulfilling than--well, than almost anything. Lots of human endeavors offer opportunities to undertake, or appreciate the undertakings of others in, intellectual and/or physical challenges. Music has an entire other, ineffable dimension which is where the value that ultimately matters (*to me!*) is found.

Ken Byng · Post by **Ken Byng** » 20 May 2009 10:56 am

I once read a very interesting interview with legendary producer Billy Sherrill. He was asked why he used Pete Drake on his recordings when there were far more technical players around. His reply was that Pete played exactly what was asked of him, and most other steel players didn't like being told what to play. Simple as that.

Greg Cutshaw · Post by **Greg Cutshaw** » 20 May 2009 12:06 pm

Until recently I had only heard Curly Chalker on records and was blown away at his technique, chords, tone and creativity.

After hearing him on the Wilburn Brothers shows I am more than blown away. His later playing on E9th, not documented on recordings, IMHO blows away everyone for emotion and commercial sounds. He plays all of the Hughey and Green type riffs with phenomenal feeling. His palm blocking when he so desires, sounds just like Lloyds, his upper fret work and vibrato, just as good As Hughey's. If you listedn to all the cuts of him on that show, you will see him play a lot of Green/Hughey licks complete with the signature tone of each. He even seemed to tone down the complexity to fit in better with the song. Not to mention that at any time he could switch necks and sound like Curly.

It just seems like his E9th skills and creativity got vastly better in later years and very of this was caught on record but it does show on these TV shows.

Greg

Jim Cohen · Post by **Jim Cohen** » 20 May 2009 12:14 pm

Ken Byng wrote:... His reply was that Pete played exactly what was asked of him, and most other steel players didn't like being told what to play...

With the exception of the talk-box thing, Pete was never one to try to push the technical or musical boundaries of the instrument, like Emmons, Day, Green, Chalker, etc. I have read elsewhere that there was often a competition among the 'vanguard' players to be the first to get a certain 'sound' (pedal change, whatever) onto a recording. That would seem to be consistent with the view that Drake would play whatever was asked while perhaps the 'vanguard' guys had a bit of their own agenda...

But I wasn't there so what do I know?

Barry Blackwood · Post by **Barry Blackwood** » 20 May 2009 12:26 pm

I once read a very interesting interview with legendary producer Billy Sherrill. He was asked why he used Pete Drake on his recordings when there were far more technical players around. His reply was that Pete played exactly what was asked of him, and most other steel players didn't like being told what to play. Simple as that.

Understandable. In this case, you have to decide who is going to be in control of your playing - you or the producer(s). You can choose to trust them or not.

Jim Cohen · Post by **Jim Cohen** » 20 May 2009 12:46 pm

Barry Blackwood wrote:In this case, you have to decide who is going to be in control of your playing - you or the producer(s). You can choose to trust them or not.

And, of course, the producers are saying, "You have to decide who's going to be in control of your recording -- you or the sidemen."

Guess who wins?

Tony Smart · Post by **Tony Smart** » 20 May 2009 1:03 pm

The interview where Buddy made his comments about Pete was actually taken from a live broadcast of Bob Powell’s Country Show on Radio London, where he had Buddy as a guest.

I actually heard this show live and it is my opinion that Buddy actually meant that Pete was capable of playing far better stuff than he was coming up with at the time.

Surely no one can doubt that Pete’s playing did become a bit (shall we say) predictable on a lot of his later stuff. However, you only have to listen to his Starday instrumental L.P’s to realise just how good he could be. – They were innovative, unique and ahead of their time in my opinion.

Barry Blackwood · Post by **Barry Blackwood** » 20 May 2009 1:12 pm

And, of course, the producers are saying, "You have to decide who's going to be in control of your recording -- you or the sidemen."

Guess who wins?

So Jim, I guess the one who wins is the one we can blame?