Is intonation easier with JI than with ET?

Bill Llewellyn · Post by **Bill Llewellyn** » 24 Nov 2004 6:57 pm

I'm sitting here listening to George Strait's Blue Clear Sky CD with Paul F on steel. It's clear as a bell that Paul tunes to just intonation (JI) in listening to this disc. Of course, he's even said that here on the Forum in the past.

Every time a chord rings out on his steel, it's just as beatless as a mirror is smooth. I personally tune to ET (even temperment) because it's easy with my Korg chromatic tuner (read: I'm lazy) and it matches up with my keyboards, and perhaps as a result--at least partly--my intonation is (actually, for many reasons) less than prefect.

So here's the question: Is it actually easier to get proper intonation when using JI rather than ET? I ask because it seems pretty clear that pulling-in one's bar position so that all beats are gone would be easier (JI) than somehow leaving the precise amount of beating on the 3rd to allow the other strings to stay in tune (ET).

Sorry to bring the old ET/JI discussion up again, but this seems to me to be a question that hasn't been broached before.

(Hoping Thanksgiving was good for y'all.)

------------------
Bill, steelin' since '99 | Steel page | My music | Steelers' birthdays | Over 50?

Bob Hoffnar · Post by **Bob Hoffnar** » 24 Nov 2004 9:54 pm

I'm coming to the conclusion these days that it might not matter that much if you tune one way or another. My intonation started getting better when I focused on my hearing and ability to adjust rather than how I tuned. I just tune the same all the time and once the music starts and the bar hits the strings I listen as best I can.
For the record I tune beats out everywhere I can on the neck. Its easyer for me that way but I have heard other players that tune way different play in tune just fine.

------------------

Bob
intonation help

Bobby Lee · Post by **Bobby Lee** » 24 Nov 2004 11:20 pm

I think it's easier to play in tune with other instruments if your guitar sounds in tune by itself. My guitar just doesn't sound in tune if I tune it to ET. It doesn't matter if other instruments are playing or not. Your keyboard won't make your steel sound more in tune if it sounds out to start with.

So yeah, I think it's easier to play in tune if you tune JI and listen to yourself. If you play by sight, ET is probably the better bet, especially on that A+F position!

Eric West · Post by **Eric West** » 25 Nov 2004 12:04 am

Yet a couple more Here,
and Here.

I still read on this subject a lot, and it's becoming clearer and clearer that without claiming to be a world class anything, some people can simply prefer to hear ET, and some prefer JI. I've luckily avoided thinking about it for most of my playing life, from age 9 or ten to age 51, and I'm glad for not getting too caught up in it.

I was listening to Emmons Right or Wrong cut today, and wondering if it was cut when he used JI, or if it was after he switched to Equal Temperment.

I know when I tune up totally to the zeros and play a good loud major chord, I like to hear the beats.

To me, as well as others mentioned in the articles, it's what our ears are attuned to, and Not that we've beat ourselves to being somehow "tone deaf" by listening to ET. That's a lot less insulting to those of us that have been working paid musicians for scores of years and don't care for JI.

Mathematically you start having problems out of the harmonized scales that represent chords in the open position. If all you ever play is I IIm IIIm IV V7 VIm VII/o or variations or note of in any given position, you're fine in JI. The moment you play a note out of the open positon, such as parts of a IImaj chord say by lowering your Bs, or your A/F VImaj E9 combo,you've got a problem that's WAY off JI. No matter how you slice it.

However, as I've said many times, like the phenom of being albe to tpye wrods whit the right amount of letters and the correct bgnnenig and eidng, the ear is OK with phrases that have 15-20 cent out passing notes. I slow down the "top guys" stuff all the time and hear passing tones that are WAY out, and it still sounds like the top shelf to me on the record. They know how to PLAY it.

It's a great subject. A lot of it depends on what kind of instrument you play with in the band. If you play with a glockenspiel, and you're playing a C# that's fifteen cents flat to it's C#, no amount of wishing, or high falutin' nuancing will remove the clash in intonation.

Bar Movement when done tastefully at say 1/2 moves a second pretty much erases these little "clashes". Wiggling vibrato does to, but it qualifies as a bad habit where I come from.

To me, ET has always sounded better somehow, and it's sure easier to tune to, than to have to cover up the 20 cent gaps you'd have when you use your F lever and A pedal or other more advanced changes. I've tried it, and always end up with notes that I can't play.

Then there's the C6 neck, and Carl Dixon isn't around anymore to explain it to be easy to understand.

Like the E9, I tune it to ET, and try to play it as in tune as I can with the auto adjusters that god gave me.

I'm thankful for that as much as anything on this holiday.

EJL [This message was edited by Eric West on 25 November 2004 at 08:04 AM.]

Mark Durante · Post by **Mark Durante** » 25 Nov 2004 9:54 am

No matter how an instrument is tuned it is then up to the player to PLAY it in tune. That seems to be the most difficult thing to achieve.[This message was edited by Mark Durante on 25 November 2004 at 09:57 AM.]

Bob Simmons · Post by **Bob Simmons** » 25 Nov 2004 10:23 am

Having played for many many years, here's what I do. I get my 1st and 5ths 440 then my 9ths and other cromatics slightly below 440 (438) and my 3rds around 437 or so--- nothing new BUT, guess what? then you get to twipe again depending on whether your strings are new or not(they change as you use them) USE YOUR EAR - that's how this contraption we call pedal steel works anyway--- good luck, and I hope you don't go crazy 1st. If you have a head cold just use the tuner and foreget what I said

Eric West · Post by **Eric West** » 25 Nov 2004 11:44 am

I guess what I'm saying is that if you tune your contraption so that "all the beats are gone" you're going to find several places where things don't "match up". The links I posted show pretty plainly why this is. It's provided many people with lifelong incomes trying to explain it.

"Tuning beats out" is not tuning "by ear", it's tuning by counting beats. Especially when overdriving the notes so you can "count easily".

If you don't want to go crazy or have significant changes that you "can't use", then learn to tune by ear, having the amount of beats necessary in especially your thirds to get your instrument in tune with fixed pitch instruments. It takes a good while longer, and is easier with a tuner.

Your thirds are going to need some beats in them. I use about three per second o the thirds, and about one every two for the fifths.

The problem of having chords that clash when tuning beats out shouldn't be that hard to understand. Piano tuners have dealt with it for hundreds of years.

It's only as complicated as you make it.

As mentioned, the playing is the main thing.

Now excuse me while I play for a while.

Happy T Day.

EJL

Bobby Lee · Post by **Bobby Lee** » 25 Nov 2004 12:14 pm

I think you're avoiding Bill's original question, Eric. "Is it actually easier to get proper intonation when using JI rather than ET?"

This sort of hinges on the meaning of "proper intonation". To me, that means something that sounds correct to a well trained musical ear. Some musicians, like Eric, actually enjoy the color that beats create in harmonies, but is that really "proper intonation"?

To me, sharp is sharp and flat is flat. I can enjoy and appreciate harmonies that are deliberately placed sharp or flat, and I can forgive harmonies that are slightly sharp or flat because of the limitations of an instrument. These things add color to music. But to me, they are not "proper intonation".

If it sounds out of tune, it is out of tune.

------------------
<img align=right src="http://b0b.com/Hotb0b.gif" width="96 height="96">Bobby Lee - email: quasar@b0b.com - gigs - CDs, Open Hearts
Sierra SD-12 (Ext E9), Williams D-12 Crossover, Sierra S-12 (F Diatonic)
Sierra Laptop 8 (E6add9), Fender Stringmaster (E13, C6, A6)[This message was edited by Bobby Lee on 25 November 2004 at 12:16 PM.]

Travis Bernhardt · Post by **Travis Bernhardt** » 25 Nov 2004 12:15 pm

Just a quick aside, for Eric. The phenomenon where you write wrods wtih the wnrog letter order and the first and the letter the same is pretty limited. The words in the paragraph you've probably read to demonstrate the effect are actually very carefully chosen. The effect is not universal by a long shot. I only happen to know this as a family member is a linguistics professor.

-Travis

Donny Hinson · Post by **Donny Hinson** » 25 Nov 2004 12:56 pm

If it sounds out of tune, it is out of tune.

Now where have I heard that before?

Every time a chord rings out on his steel, it's just as beatless as a mirror is smooth.

Wow, wonderful simile, wish I'd said that...because that's what I'm always striving for. When those notes just line up so perfectly, it's heavenly! There are some pros I just can't listen to for very long...too many beats in their chords. Maybe others can tolerate it, but I can't. It's like fingernails on a blackboard, and it aggravates my very soul. It invades my enjoyment of anything else they're doing. I try to be "accepting", really I do, but my psyche just says..."If a whole symphony orchestra can play without noticeable beats, we oughta be able to do it too!"

Perfection is beatless.

A few beats here and there can be tolerable, if the player has skill enough to manipulate them or cover them up with vibrato. But when everything's a few beats out, I just have to stop listening.

Forgive me.

Eric West · Post by **Eric West** » 25 Nov 2004 3:21 pm

"If a whole symphony orchestra can play without noticeable beats, we oughta be able to do it too!"

Yeah well if they could, which they can't and don't there would be no need for different tuning methods.

I think Perfection is around the corner from Utopia. Both cities in Utah, last time I looked....

Don't stop listening.

If it clashes with fixed pitch instruments like pianos, vibes, glockenspiels, harps, then it's out of tune.

"Is it actually easier to get proper intonation when using JI rather than ET?"

No.

When you end up, like b0b said, using "problematic changes" then you're screwed.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>My apologies for not explaining up front Bill, but I do tune everything ET. Compensation is what I had to deal with tuning the old way but now it’s a thing of the past. I may go a cent or so flat in some cases but strictly to handle temp changes under certain conditions.

Also when I hear a JI steel third in a ET track, flat is the only word I can come up with. -?-

My primary reason for tuning ET is to get everything out of the guitar that it’s capable of delivering. To me that’s what you should expect out of any musical instrument. Tuning ET has allowed me to use pedals and pedal combinations never before possible when I had to compromise. -?- <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Travis. So are our runs, licks, riffs, etc, carefully chosen. Try it. Slow down a good hot _ _ recording and see how many of the passing notes slide in and out, starting and ending "perfectly".

Is it actually easier to get proper intonation when using JI rather than ET?

So my answer, however well considered, is No.

Qualifying "Proper Intonation" is the key to your question. If you mean for one or two of your "favorite chords" then it might be. If you plan on using other than two pedals and one knee lever and playing "nice fat chords in more than two positions, Good Luck.

I've never been in combat in Vietnam, I've never played with Emmy Lou Harris, I've never had a recording contract of any type. I've played over 2500 paid gigs, and worn out a Sho~Bud ProIII. None of them ever wanted their money back.

I also know what "in tune is" when I hear something that's sharp or flat, "out of tune" is what comes to mind..

Happy TDay.

EJL

Damir Besic · Post by **Damir Besic** » 25 Nov 2004 4:35 pm

I always tune the whole thing straight up 440.Why?

1.I don`t have a time to tune differently on stage
2.sounds good to me (never was asked to pay money back)
3.I`m lazy to do any other way
4.I don`t care,I can`t play like BE anyway so what a hell,
5.half of the people in the crowd has no idea what is that thing I`m playing anyway

do I sound out of tune to myself sometimes?you bet.

Db

------------------

"Promat"
~when tone matters~

Jennings Ward · Post by **Jennings Ward** » 25 Nov 2004 10:02 pm

A FEW YEARS AGO I HAD A CONVERSATION WITH THE BIG " BE " ABOUT SOME SUCH SUBJECT. AFTER A BRIEF DISCUSSION WE AGREED , wHAT EVER IT IS YOU ARE TRYING TO PLAY, {TUNE} ECT: WHATEVER, IT MUST BE PLEASING TO THE EAR. NO BUTS ABOUT IT...DOES NOT MAKE ANY DIFFERENCE HOW YOU TUNE OR WHAT NAME YOU WANT TO GIVE IT, IT MUST BE PLEASING TO THE EAR.,,,ALL TONES , NOTES, FREQUENCIES MUST HAVE THEIR " HARMONICS" OR THE SOUND IS NOISE, NO EXCEPTIONS........ THANK YOU FOR LETTING ME HAVE AQ SAY, RIGHT OR WRONG, HOWEVER YOU WANT TO PERCIEVE IT.............JENNINGS,,,,,,,,,,_________________________

------------------
EMMONS D10 10-10 profex 2 deltafex ne1000 pv1000, pv 31 bd eq, +

Bill Llewellyn · Post by **Bill Llewellyn** » 26 Nov 2004 9:19 am

Good responses, fellows. My guess at the answer to my own question is that JI (which I don't use) would be easier. Whenever one tunes a 6-string to a piano or keyboard, one tunes each note until the beats are gone. That's easier than trying to tune to a particular number of beats per second for each note. So I'd guess that bar positioning for the most beatless JI sound would be easier on steel than having to position to get the (major) thirds beating sharp and the 5ths beating slightly as well with ET. But I haven't actually tried JI. To get a good working JI setup on my E9 arrangement would take a bunch of pedal and lever adjustments, and I'd have to figure out which chords to compromise in favor of others. ET is much easier to set up, covers all keys and inversions, and is generally less complicated to manage. (And like I said, I'm lazy.)

------------------
Bill, steelin' since '99 | Steel page | My music | Steelers' birthdays | Over 50?

Donny Hinson · Post by **Donny Hinson** » 26 Nov 2004 12:57 pm

Eric, I both notice and respect your opinion, with regards to symphony orchestras playing with noticeable (excess?) beats, ergo noticeably "out of tune".

However, I certainly do not agree with you. If most of us could play nearly that well, or nearly that "in tune" with other instruments, we would not have the plethora of posts asking..."How should I tune?" Perhaps you are listening to high-school orchestras?

(Ask your muse.)

At any rate, just because perfection is never achieved doesn't mean one should stop striving for it.

Eric West · Post by **Eric West** » 26 Nov 2004 1:41 pm

Donny. I always like your posts.

Actually the last "symphony" I listened to WAS a high school orchestra, and I did hear a lot of dissonance. On the larger ones I've hear in the past, I don't remember. The last ones I heard were the Navy Bands there at Bolling Field. I never thought to ask them.

I know that an A note has 440 beats per second. Some purist is bound to come out of the woodwork and demand "silence" to remove all the beats.

Silence being golden and all, as they say..

Maybe there'd be a lot less posts if some rocket scientist somewhere in our primordial past hadn't decided that the tuners and tuning forks were wrong, and you could get away with detuning a guitar and removing the beats on the major thirds to make it more in tune...

Mr Emmons tunes straight up, and I reckon that's good enough for me. Mr Charleton didn't spend much time at all with me on it. It was all he could do to teach me Bud's Bounce in a couple years. Poor guy.

I only attent these mobius strip 43 note-beatless-scale varmint hunts for my own entertainment.

When it comes to beats it seems I'm always a beat o... (no I won't say it..)

I admit, there was a time that I started to think that tuning the thirds down to stop the osillations would make the lambs stop screaming.....

If you agree with me on this. I will be uncomfortable.

Hope you and had a nice TDay.

EJL[This message was edited by Eric West on 26 November 2004 at 01:43 PM.]

David Doggett · Post by **David Doggett** » 26 Nov 2004 6:25 pm

Bill, the answer to your original question is yes and no. Yes, having a lot of movable JI chords, which pedal steel is unique in having (if you tune JI), makes playing in tune easier. For this same reason, almost none of the instruments in a symphony orchestra are fixed-pitch, certainly none of the dominant ones, the strings and brasses. Also, singers naturally gravitate toward JI. It's easier to hear and find JI by ear. It would take a great amount of training to sing a perfect ET scale - even piano tuners resort to counting the beats. Yet even children can learn to sing scales and harmonized chords in JI.

All that being said. If you put enough pedals and levers and extra strings on a steel guitar, you end up with some inversions that cannot be played JI. The prime example is the A pedal/F lever position. I only use that combination in passing. And even in passing I might slant the bar and play only two strings. I can usually get it to sound about as good as all of the chords sound when tuned ET. I simply had rather have at least some chords in tune (JI) rather than all of them compromised (ET). Obviously, others, such as Eric, feel the opposite.

Most of the top pros seem to do one of two things: (1) They take a single note (usually E or A) from a tuner or piano, and tune all the other strings, pedals and levers by ear to that. This gets them close to JI on their most commonly used combinations. But they might compromise or tweak some things a little toward ET (as in Jeff Newman's method); or (2) they tune everything straight up ET, then tweak a few things a little closer to JI (this is what Buddy Emmons has described as his method). Do you see a pattern here? They have all reached some personal compromise somewhere between JI and ET. Technically, now none of these are either JI or ET, but they are tempered tunings of each player's own invention. Whatever you call them, these are the tunings that these players find easiest to play in tune, both with their own instrument and others.

The idea that you have to tune ET to play along with ET tuned keyboards and fretted instruments is simplistic. For piano concertos, they wheel a piano out on stage. The pianist plays ET and the orchestra plays JI - somehow they make it work. But it is enough of a strain that keyboards were dropped from the regular line up of symphony orchestras long ago. Likewise, a good pro steeler with a JI tuning can lay down a well intoned track over previous tracks laid down by ET keyboards and guitar. However, this does not work well in reverse. If the steeler plays first, without hearing the piano, then the steel may sound out when the piano is laid down later. Same thing can happen with fretless strings.

In one of these JI/ET threads, Jim Cohen related how he had tried tuning both ET and JI to record with a piano. Surprisingly everyone in the studio agreed he sounded better tuned JI. One possible explanation is that people expect to hear an instrument in tune with itself, and they can better tolerate some tuning differences between instruments. Also, Jim may be consciously or unconsciously using his ears to split the difference between the two instruments. Of course that is not possible with open strings. But as far as that goes, whether I tune JI or ET, half way through a live set with a guitar band, my open strings no longer match what everyone else is playing (and it's not because my Zum and Emmons don't hold to pitch).

Okay, so I guess the answer to your question is not "yes and no," but rather "it depends." So I hope that's all cleared up now.

Dan Tyack · Post by **Dan Tyack** » 26 Nov 2004 9:02 pm

To add to David's return to the original question, it's a lot easier for me to play in tune with a track or an orchestra with JI than with ET. But that's largely because I have learned to play JI. Buddy Emmons plays great (and in tune) with ET.

Great classical players who can do something about intunation (e.g. everybody except the piano player) play JI, at least to some degree. Why else do classical players spend so much time learning harmonization and theory? Because there is a difference between the same named note, based on where that note appears harmonically.

------------------
www.tyack.com

Eric West · Post by **Eric West** » 27 Nov 2004 2:41 am

(this is what Buddy Emmons has described as his method)

No, this is not

.

This is what he said: <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>My apologies for not explaining up front Bill, but I do tune everything ET. Compensation is what I had to deal with tuning the old way but now it’s a thing of the past. I may go a cent or so flat in some cases but strictly to handle temp changes under certain conditions.
Also when I hear a JI steel third in a ET track, flat is the only word I can come up with. - Buddy Emmons-<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The idea that you have to tune ET to play along with ET tuned keyboards and fretted instruments is simplistic.

It is simplistic, though not easy. You can play along with them, but you'll be physically out of tune half the time. You can say or feel you are in tune, and from my experience you can browbeat a stringed Helpenstil or Yammie minigrand player into thinking he's the one that's out of tune. ( they usually were.) but if you're tuning the thirds 12-15 cents flat, you're flat.

I'm sure I play with an ear bent toward flatness of the thirds when I get away from playing with an electronic keyboard, but I've tended to have to do that recently. I think I relayed that it takes a night or two to get used to not compromising.

It's pretty plain. Almost any instrument that plays chords and has fixed changes must tune ET or there's a severely limited amount of combinations they can use and not be severely out of tune.

I can't make rash statements as to what "singers do" or "orchestras do" without having to at least post examples. I'd be more than glad to study them. I have done a lot of reading since this "flatting your thirds" thing broke throught my quarter century of ignorant bliss.

For one, the Grand Harp, I have done all kinds of searches, and have yet to find a tuning method that flats certain strings or changes. It's probably the closest elative instrument to the PSG.

Gotta run. Three gigs and two days. I'll be back to get thrashed later.

Why have an F lever if you can't use it except in "passing"?

EJL

Doug Rolfe · Post by **Doug Rolfe** » 27 Nov 2004 6:05 am

To me this issue lies in the "ear" of the beholder. As an example, Bill Stafford tunes straight up and I have not heard any comments about him sounding out of tune or having a lot of beats that override the chord. He sounds as sweet as any IMHO and does not have an issue with dissidence or heavy beats.
I have been told that I can hear when a note is 2 cents off, I don't know that for sure. It came from a music teacher. If that is true, then to my "ear" tuning straight up is more pleasant as it is "in tune" with the rest of the band.
If you look at JI and go through all of the scenarios, you will find a lot of problems with being in tune and beatless after you have tuned it open because the root and or fifth note may be out of tune in other chords with some pedal and knee lever positions.
All tunings have some compromise and it is a matter of which sounds better to you.
I pesonnally tune straight up, but since I do not play professionally but for my own enjoyment most of the time, I can tune it how it sounds best to me.
As for the comment about keyboards/pianos being excluded from orchestras, here in INDY the orchestra has a full time keyboard and also uses a piano on some occasions. It is one of only 13 full time orchestras in the U.S.
Which sounds better as far as intonation---
It is in the "ear" of the beholder!!!

Rick Aiello · Post by **Rick Aiello** » 27 Nov 2004 8:03 am

I know that an A note has 440 beats per second. Some purist is bound to come out of the woodwork and demand "silence" to remove all the beats.

An A note ... at 440 Hz ... is a single frequency ... a Pure Tone.

Beats are periodic variations in amplitude that are produced when two different frequencies superposition.

Superposition of waves ... scroll down for a cool animation of beat formation.

------------------

Aiello's House of Gauss


My wife and I don't think alike. She donates money to the homeless and I donate money to the topless! ... R. Dangerfield

Rick Schmidt · Post by **Rick Schmidt** » 27 Nov 2004 8:36 am

How many ET Masons or Shriners do we have here on the forum?

Just thought I'd be the first to ask.

Bob Hoffnar · Post by **Bob Hoffnar** » 27 Nov 2004 9:42 am

Eric,
Many of your assumtions that you base your opinions on are incorrect. Here is a book that will help give you a perspective on how tuning works.

Temperament

I personally disagree with many of the concepts in the book but it does give an accurate historical/mathmatical/musical perspective.

I realize that you already know everything so this book will be a waste of time for you. But please indulge me and actually buy and read the book rather than just reading the online reviews and assuming you understand its contents. If you don't like the book after you have bought it send it to me and I will refund whatever money you have spent.

------------------

Bob
intonation help

Bobby Lee · Post by **Bobby Lee** » 27 Nov 2004 10:31 am

All that being said. If you put enough pedals and levers and extra strings on a steel guitar, you end up with some inversions that cannot be played JI. The prime example is the A pedal/F lever position. I only use that combination in passing.

That is simply not true. Here's how it works:

G# is the third of E. Tune it beatless to E.

C# is the fourth of G#. Tune the "A" pedal to be beatless with the G#.

F (aka E#) is the third of C#. Tune the "F" lever to be beatless with the A pedal.

At that point, your A+F major chord is tuned JI. You do, however, have to "aim sharp" by about 1/5 of a fret for it to be in tune with the band. Not a problem once you get used to it.

There may be examples of inversions that cannot be played in tune on a JI-tuned E9th, but A+F isn't one of them. Listen to Lloyd Green!

Bill, who started this topic, wrote:

To get a good working JI setup on my E9 arrangement would take a bunch of pedal and lever adjustments, and I'd have to figure out which chords to compromise in favor of others. ET is much easier to set up, covers all keys and inversions, and is generally less complicated to manage.

First of all, E9th was designed for JI. The only "compromise" happens on the F# string, and it's not hard to fix that with a compensator pull.

Secondly, ET is not as trouble free as you imagine, unless you have zero cabinet drop. As soon as you hit a pedal, some of the non-pulled strings have changed. Talk about intonation problems!

The E9th was designed on guitars that had cabinet drop, by people who prefered JI. If you do the math, you'll find that cabinet drop actually helps the F# wolf problem in JI. It's a total disaster in ET.

Eric West · Post by **Eric West** » 27 Nov 2004 11:06 am

Bob, I appreciate your generous offer, but the reviews were pretty stinging. Here's the part of the one I like the best:

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>The Fourier Transform Theory:
You may say again that it is only for the subatomic world. But the Fourier Transform Theory reveals that the sound wave cannot get rid of the Uncertainty of Time and Frequency. A physical signal, such as sound pressure can be represented as a continuous function of time. This is the time domain representation of the sound. There is an equally valid frequency domain representation.
The uncertainty clouds cover the differentials of pitches which depend on various temperaments. And this uncertainty might be able to break the historic curse over the music.
Music of Sacred Temperament (the Well Tempered Clavier) <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'm not sure I belong on a "Battlefield of Great Minds of Western Civilization". Weekly Bandstands are enough. The latest few months with a good electronic keyboard have allowed me to make some pretty keen observations while this latest "beatlefield" has been taking place.

I don't need to be a Great Mind of Western Civ, nor do I need to "know everything" to figure out what has gone on with the PSG.

With a keyboard, you have no available position changes. They MUST be tuned to ET or they will never be able to play out of the harmonized scale without sounding totally sour. That shouldn't take a rocket scientist to figure out.

With a Pedal Steel guitar, you, with a standard ABC raise/lower E's you have three. Lowering Bs gives you 4. The problem is four times less glaring even at the best scenario, where I give you and the other rocket scientists that there might be some tuning chart or compensation package, that would allow you to use all 4 and still manage to keep your "thirds beatless". Let's include the 9th string pedals down Maj& scale as one two, but it's sorely stretching the possibility of such a chart or mechanical compensation goldbergation.

Now if I haven't violated your attention span, you have come four (out of twelve) times closer to having a system where you are accurate within 10-15 cents of playing thirds that are flattened to remove these "beats".

I'll give you, and the other potential rocket scientists that out of sheer pseudo-intelletual generosity. One third of the time, at a preposterously presumtive supposition that all of your thirds are sufficiently flattened.

All of a sudden, using any single notes in runs, up or down becomes a 15-20 cent crapshoot, and that's before what correction can be made immediately by the most deft of players.

Those two suppositions have the added buffer of my preposterous gift of a system I've never seen to work seamlessly, though in two positions, AB up and AB down, it can be done though not perfectly. Ergo, the One third, of the time, and the crapshoot on a minimal lucky matching of the single note runs and moving thirds/fifths we all play, makes it pretty ridiculous save the two or three wide fat chords we all love to play, (whose thirds are flat to a piano, or glockenspiel). I suppose myself, when I play the AB down fat chord I might tend to slant the bar somewhat to lower the 10th string, but I've watched myself in the last couple weeks of gigs, and I don't. Especially when both the keyboard and myself end on the same chord.

It would be nice if there was a way to play all chords, positions, and single note runs with the proper flattenings or raises that a "perfect" Just Intonation scale demands, or reading or writing of books, or articles would make it so. If all of my 5000 word essays on the view from the working bandstand would or could make it so, I'd donate them. In fact I hereby do so. Unlike my "Muse Stories" and my "Indian Story" they are not copyrighted.

If it makes somebody say, ( or think) " Jeez. This is all too complicated, and it hurts my pore little haid." and they go back to using the Jeff Newmann, Paul Franklin, However Lloyd Green, or Buddy Charleton (though I'd bet that if BE tunes that way, then he does too) tunes, or Bobby Lee "method' of tuning, then I give them all the best, and take none of the credit, though maybe I should.

Me?

I'll keep tuning all my strings and changes straight up. Maybe like Mr. Emmons, I'll let my .020 G# go a cent or two flat to make up for temperature conditions. I hadn't though of that, but then I'm no Buddy Emmons..

Again I appreciate the generous offer. I'm still working my way through Will Durant's "Our Oriental Heritage." I'm also reading ALL of Hunter S Thompson's latest books trying to figure out where he actually lost his mind..

I have certainly read a lot of what I could get online, though I know it's thorougly despised, but what I've read so far that interested me, besides the links I posted, is the 43 note tuning system, taking special note of the instrument that was built to play it. Looks like an awfull lot to haul around.

I don't know everything by a long shot, but I know bullshit when I hear it, and actually if I take enough time, when I read it.

Time: The thing that keeps everything from happening all at once.-Unknown- ( Maybe Hunter S. Thompson before he lost his mind)

Anyhow, tune as you wish, and never get to the point where you either stop searching for the unattainable, or trying to defend the indefensible. People become boring at that point. Prozac is the ultimate cop out.

I'll just tune the way Mr. Emmons does, and call it close enough. I did it a long time before I knew he did. My ignorance turned out well for me in this one instance. Would I that it always did.

I wonder how Bobbe Seymour tunes...

EJL[This message was edited by Eric West on 27 November 2004 at 11:13 AM.]