All beginners and students please read this.

Mike Perlowin · Post by **Mike Perlowin** » 31 Oct 2005 9:59 am

If you look at the "our extended family" section you'll see that I have far more important things to think about than this thread, so I'll just say this.

My original post (which i have not edited) was a request, not a commandment. I asked people to buy their courses new and support the authors. I find the hostility and anger generated, like the implication that I'm some sort of hypocrite if I buy a used car or steel, to be very disturbing. (BTW I have bought 4 brand new cars in the last 22 years, and I bought my steel directly from MSA in 1979.)

But the most disturbing aspect of all this is the contempt and hostility shown by some people toward the players who dedicated their lives to the steel and made it what it is today.

I too had never heard of Lloyd Green and Jerry Byrd and Curly Chalker and and Jeff Newman before I started playing. But I made it a point to learn not just who these people were, but what they did.

There is a saying: a dwarf standing on the shoulders of a giant can see further than the giant. I (being the dwarf) have taken the steel in new and different directions, but (like my fellow iconoclasts Susan Alcorn and Chas Smith,) I did so only after spending a lot of years playing traditional E9 country and learning from the giants who came before me.

HowardR · Post by **HowardR** » 31 Oct 2005 10:29 am

I once knew a giant who dated a dwarf....he was nuts over her.....

Willis Vanderberg · Post by **Willis Vanderberg** » 31 Oct 2005 10:31 am

I do give away a lot of material, never charged a dime or shipping.I also give as much help as I can via e-mail, snail mail, telephone or what ever.
Of course with my limited talent , how much value there is could be questioned. But it sure is satisfying when someone sends back a " I finally got it " Message.
Just hangin on......

Bud

Post by **Dave Mudgett** » 31 Oct 2005 11:32 am

Like Mike, I fail to understand the level of hostility about his public suggestion. It sounds like the "you're out to destroy the fabric of our free-enterprise society" type of argument. Everybody knows that it's legal to sell used materials like this, that is not the question. [Aside: you may not know that some group, I believe RIAA, attempted to stop record stores from selling used records/CDs at one point - I'm guessing late 80s, early 90s. I believe there was a court ruling that stopped that absurd effort.] If you disagree, so be it. Make your arguments and move on.

b0b's argument about "getting your money's worth" is right to the point, IMO. If you did learn a lot from an instructional course, it is my opinion that there is a mentor/mentee relationship. I, personally, would not go into a competition with a mentor in the sale of materials he or she developed for my benefit. On the other hand, if I didn't find the materials useful, I would not hesitate to move them along. Everybody makes their personal choice.

The other practical matter is that, in Jeff Newman's case, he's not here to make new instructional materials. If people don't buy those particular ones new, there won't be any incentive for Jeffran to continue to offer them. Then there probably would be wholesale copying of the ones that are out there. (Oh, no - nobody would do that, would they?) How do you feel about that?

Finally, this argument has drifted off into an "us vs them", "country vs non-country", "old-guard vs new-guard", "blue-culture vs red-culture", and so on, argument, with all the dogma that goes with it. This is happening more and more often these days. I'm relatively new to steel guitar. Let me say right out that I think I have a lot to learn from the "old-guard", regardless of what styles of music I ultimately wind up applying this to. Ignore them if you insist, but I think you are making a mistake. As a group, they are incredibly generous with their knowledge. It's hardly an original thought that those who refuse to learn from the errors of previous generations are bound to repeat them, but it's true. Sometimes it's good to make ones own errors, but why bang your head into a brick wall over and over? Some of these guys have "been there, done that, have the t-shirt", and are ready to help all of us. The only thing they seem to demand is a little respect.

jim milewski · Post by **jim milewski** » 31 Oct 2005 1:05 pm

I must have missed something, I didn't notice any hostility, just opposing opinions and I loved the giant and dwarf joke, I'll also add that one does retain knowledge in the case of passing on instruments, amps, etc., the knowledge of the instrument or accessory in sound, mechanics, tricks in tuning, what pick up sounds best etc.

Jim Sliff · Post by **Jim Sliff** » 31 Oct 2005 1:09 pm

Dave, if you found the stuff useful, but no longer need it yourself, don't you think it's a waste to have it sit in a box in your garage, or throw it away rather than let a newer player get some benefit from it? Same with b0b's "seminar in a box" idea - it still doesn't hold water, because there are tangible goods involved.

Move them along so others get the chance to experience them rather than hoard 'em.

"and also find examples that most people have heard or recognize, hence the "Red River Valley" syndrome."

Find me a kid in his 20's...or even 30's...who knows "Red River Valley". That argument confirms my statement that the materials are dated. I'm over 50 - sure I recognize it. My 23 year old son had no clue what I was playing, and my teenage daughter thought it was something from an old TV show or something.

The more we use this stale stuff, the more we lose ground.

And I hope no one thought I was dissing players I've never heard of. To the contrary, I make no claim about them one way or the other, since I don't know their music. Not having heard someone isn't an insult - neither is the lack of desire to hear them, if you have a pretty good notion they play a style of music you really don't like much.

Buddy Guy probably doesn't listen to much Segovia. Segovia might as well be playing different instrument.

(edited for a typo only)[This message was edited by Jim Sliff on 31 October 2005 at 06:34 PM.]

Billy Carr · Post by **Billy Carr** » 31 Oct 2005 1:25 pm

It's all about learning and sharing the different things you'll find in the world of Psg. Players, old and new are looking for Psg info. So many different opinions and thoughts are exactly what developes different styles of playing. We as steel players are all in the Psg family together.

Mike Perlowin · Post by **Mike Perlowin** » 31 Oct 2005 5:35 pm

Jim, I think you're missing an essential point. When we learn red river valley we're not learning the song, we're learning the instrument.

It's like practicing scales. Same principle.

Even though you have no interest in ever playing those old songs, learning them now will increase your skill and level of understanding of the instrument, and help you to do your own thing down the road.

[This message was edited by b0b on 31 October 2005 at 05:42 PM.]

Post by **Dave Mudgett** » 31 Oct 2005 5:37 pm

Same with b)b's "seminar in a box" idea - it still doesn't hold water, because there are tangible goods involved.

I'm not making a legal argument here, and neither did Mike. That was already adjudicated a long time ago, and I don't propose to reargue that here. But from a purely logical viewpoint, the "value" in instructional material is the instructional ideas contained in them, not the physical medium. The goods here are basically intellectual, not tangible. If one "learns" the ideas presented, then most of the "value" has been extracted - not all of it, because one can sometimes glean new ideas on re-examination. But this is fundamentally different than purely "entertainment" materials, which are primarily intended for repeated listening. The "value" there is primarily in the ability to hear it over and over again, not "learning" something specific. This is a clearly reasonable interpretation of two different kinds of materials, but you're free to view it your own way.

This is mechanically equivalent to books and journals bought by libraries. Libraries pay much higher fees than single readers, because of the larger number of users who obtain "value" from the materials sold. I guess the instructional material model could be to raise the price to account for multiple users like this. If you've seen the price of college textbooks recently (I teach college), you'd know that's exactly what's going on. $100-200 for a typical new textbook? No joke, that's the reality, which probably both drives and is driven by the trend to used textbooks. I think it's a bad model. I'd rather see more people able to build up a library of more reasonably priced and useful books and other instructional/reference materials.

... neither is the lack of desire to hear them, if you have a pretty good notion they play a style of music you really don't like much.

How do you know you won't like it if you don't give it a chance or ever even listen to it? There are lots of styles of music that, at one phase of my life, I didn't like, and then later found there was more to it than I realized. Further, I'm always amazed at the "discoveries" that people make in one style that only re-invent the wheel from some other style.

Buddy Guy probably doesn't listen to much Segovia. Segovia might as well be playing different instrument.

I don't know, I haven't asked Buddy. Have you?

Seriously, do we suppose that most blues players listen only to blues? I've played blues seriously since the late 60s. I've played in blues bands that worked shows with lots of well known blues players. Lots of blues players I have met have wide ranging influences. Same goes for many other styles. But even if some of them do listen only to "their style", so what? Myself, I want to hear lots of influences, which is precisely equivalent to the "new-guard" argument that steel guitar needs to move out of the rut of a purely country mold.

As far as being a different instrument, a gut-strung classical guitar is a different instrument than, for example, most electric guitars. The physical demands are radically different. So far, a pedal steel is pretty much a pedal steel (I'm sticking to pedal steel here, since that's the issue with most of the instructional material we're talking about). It seems to me that grips and picking, blocking, bar control, physical operation of the pedals and levers, moving chords, single-note-technique, and so on, are critical to anybody playing the instrument in any style and share a lot of technique commonality.

As far as Segovia goes, there was a long history of guitar music before him. Do you really think that classical guitar players like Segovia and his followers were/are unaware of these earlier styles and used none of the techniques developed for them? That is the comparable situation with the pedal steel, which was initially developed mainly for country music. For decades, virtually all the important pedal steel players played country music and some developed serious jazz chops. Only fairly recently have players moved out of these molds, and most of those mavericks seem to praise the merits of these great older players.

So I fail to understand how anybody could argue that the acknowledged masters of the instrument are basically irrelevant to new development on that instrument, regardless of which instrument it is. I get equally perplexed when inexperienced guitar players talk about Jimmy Page, Eric Clapton, and SRV as the "roots of the blues guitar", and eschew their mentors like Robert Johnson, Son House, Albert King, and Buddy Guy because they got some notion that they don't like it, "they don't rock", whatever. I'll acknowledge the reality that people are like this, but never accept that it's good.

This all reminds me of the line from "Sultans of Swing" - "They don't give a damn about any trumpet playing band; It ain't what they call rock and roll." So when somebody says something that even feels like "I couldn't care less about people like {our family members} Jeff Newman or "insert-favorite-steel-icon", they shouldn't be too surprised if many people on this forum perceive that as hostile. Just my opinions, as usual - not trying to rile anybody up. I don't want anybody to leave this fine forum.

Ron Page · Post by **Ron Page** » 31 Oct 2005 6:23 pm

Following some of the logic in this thread, or trying anyway, I guess libraries are a bad deal for authors and publishers too. After all, they loan books to people for free.

Comparisons to live, one-on-one lessons are poor. The reason the teachers went to tapes and books is to reach a wider audience than possibile face-to-face. There are two markets, new and used. Take your pick(s).

------------------
HagFan

Post by **Dave Mudgett** » 31 Oct 2005 6:49 pm

Following some of the logic in this thread, or trying anyway, I guess libraries are a bad deal for authors and publishers too. After all, they loan books to people for free.

Ron - sorry, but I think you missed my point, which was that publishers typically charge libraries many times (I'd guess 5-10 times or more) as much for, let's say, a scholarly journal than a private citizen has to pay for the exact same subscription. The reason is that they are factoring in the number of people who will have access to it, because they loan it out for free. They are trying to equalize the profitability of selling to libraries vs. private citizens (who supposedly don't loan/give away their copies).

Libraries, of course, are crying foul as the cost of material goes sky high. In fact, many libraries are now dumping lots of well known journals for this reason. These issues come up in my work - I teach Information Sciences and Technology at Penn State University. As online publications get more and more important, this issue will rear its head more and more.

Jim Sliff · Post by **Jim Sliff** » 31 Oct 2005 7:20 pm

"Jim, I think you're missing an essential point. When we learn red river valley we're not learning the song, we're learning the instrument.
It's like practicing scales. Same principle."

Red River Valley
Bile the Cabbage Down
Grandfather's Clock
Sidewalks of Nashville
Wabash Cannonball
Wreck of the Old 97

Come on, Mike - even you have to admit that's not a llist that's just "learning the instrument"...it's a bunch of dusty of tunes that were dried up when the book was first published. It's not "Mel Bay's Deluxe Pedal Steel Guitar Method", it's "Mel Bay's beginning hackneyed country pedal steel book".

I have a ton of beginning and intermeediate guitar books around here from when I was teaching and that my kids use. Almost all of them, unless they state that they are intended for a specific style, cover a lot of stylistic ground (without using the actual songs due to publishing rights) from Beatles to Chuck Berry to Van Halen to B.B. King to Joe Pass.

The steel stuff that I can buy at a music store, by comparison, is ALL country, and ALL *old*.

But I can look at it before I buy it - thumb through and see iif anything is interesting. I bought the Bay book because I'd had the Winston book (the only other one available) and it was pretty bad IMO. Ended up pretty close, except the CD with the Bay book has rhythm parts laughably off the beat on some songs. $37.00 to listen to duussty tunees played by folks who don't care enough to put a decent take on the recording?

Hence my reticence to pay full price on stuff I've never seen. If commercial releases are this weak (IMO), what can I expect from self-produced materials that are 3 times the price? If the stuff is awful, then what? I have to sell it at a loss. Sorry, but my budget doesn't allow for financial experimentation in the $100 a pop range.

And Dave - the classical guitar is still a six-string instrument, with the same general size, shape and tuning as the instruments used in other styles. that being said, my (and others) lack of exposure to some of the "giants" of pedal steel may be because we know up front that they play country...and this may comee as a shock to you, but there are thousands of players of instruments of all kinds who don't listen to country because they *don't like it*. Personally, I don't *mind* it - but I don't go out of my way to listen to any, and I'm not about to spend money on country CD's. It doesn't make the players "irrelevant", but it does limit howw much I and soee others may be exposed to them. They may be highly skilled - but so is Yngwie Malmsteen, and when I could play guitar I couldn't take more than seconds of him either.

Just like a lot of others won't touch a Robert Randolph recording. It's not their style. Which is FINE.

The problem is the industry seems to, with a few exceptions, strongly lean towards country music...and older country at that. The progressive players have a small piece of the market. And if the industry doesn't embrace newer music and ALL players, it's going to consume itself, shrivel and die (the industry consisting of all players, manufacturers, annd producers of educational materials).

Got a little off the new/used subject, but not much - again, I can experiment with more used materials, and is they work for me buy new stuff from the same producer. But force me to pay $100 or more for something I've never seen that probably leans in a stylistic direction I don't play and I'm hesitant to even try it.

As I also have saiid, I'd love to giive Jeff Newman's and Joe Wright's stuff a try - but they are both very expensive, and unless I can test the waters with somee used materials, it'll never happen. Might be my loss, but you have NO way to convince me.

Lastly - it sure would be nice to see some publisher find a few open-minded, experienced player/teachers and produce some commercial materials that are a little more up-to-date and that cover far styles. Heck, I plug my steel (which is the highly - disdained Fender 400) into my Fender GDec and play along with blues, reggae, metal, jazz, progressive rock, rockabilly...so why doesn't anyone TEACH it like that??? I'm struggling along finding my own way because the steel world is too locked into it's cubbyhole and is afraid to come out and meet the whole world of music.

Funny how Mike Perlowin (One thing on my shopping list is his Firebird Suite.) and I disagree on the new/used issue, but sure seem to have some of the the same ideas regarding the instrument's use.

Must be because we're both in the L.A. area or something.

[This message was edited by Jim Sliff on 31 October 2005 at 07:24 PM.]

Travis Bernhardt · Post by **Travis Bernhardt** » 31 Oct 2005 11:12 pm

Dave Mudgett said: "from a purely logical viewpoint, the "value" in instructional material is the instructional ideas contained in them, not the physical medium. The goods here are basically intellectual, not tangible. If one "learns" the ideas presented, then most of the "value" has been extracted"

I'm not sure I agree, although it depends on what you mean by "instructional ideas." Suppose you take a lesson from a live teacher and learn, say, a blocking technique. Then, a while later, you're jamming with your friend who also plays steel and you show your friend this technique. I don't think in this case you would have any obligation to say to your friend, "hey, sorry, I can't teach you that because I learned it from so-and-so, and it's not mine to teach." I think that once you've learned that technique, it's yours to share at your whim (or to charge for sharing it, according to your desire and ability to get people to pay you for it).

My point being that the "value" of the lesson might be in the information alone, but then who could possibly claim ownership of that information? If you said, "I put out an instructional course full of ideas, and I retain ownership of those ideas; only by having bought my course may you hold your hand in so-and-so position while playing guitar," I think people would laugh at you.

I said that it depends on what you mean by "instructional ideas." I think that the value of a course isn't precisely in the sort of "meta" concepts like how to hold your hands or where to find your relative minor chord at a given fret, but rather in the precise arrangement of the material: the actual physical product which you used to attain the level of knowledge you now posess. In the case of a live lesson, the "value" isn't exactly in the specific things taught, but in the process of teaching itself, involving questions and answers, observation and feedback, etc.

The "value" is sort of in the broad concepts, the ideas that are ultimately being communicated, but that kind of value, I would say, cannot really be owned in the first place. Not in this particular field, anyways (i.e. music).

-Travis

Travis Bernhardt · Post by **Travis Bernhardt** » 31 Oct 2005 11:19 pm

Oh, and Jim, the subject of the quality (suitability, really) of instructional material for pedal steel would make an excellent separate topic, I think.

I have some thoughts on that that I might enjoy trying to massage into something coherent, and it's clear you have some strong opinions—care to start another thread?

-Travis

P.S. Even if I don't entirely agree, hearing somebody knock the "bibles" of pedal steel is refreshing![This message was edited by Travis Bernhardt on 31 October 2005 at 11:20 PM.]

Mike Perlowin · Post by **Mike Perlowin** » 1 Nov 2005 12:28 am

Jim you are 100& wrong about Winnie Winston's book. Thousands of people, including myself, have learned to play from it.

You say you admire me because I play music by Debussy and Stravinsky on the steel (I also play music by Jimi Hendrix and Duane Allman BTW.) The reason I'm able to play both kinds of music is that I studied Winnie's book, and learned to play Streets of Larado and the other tunes in the book, and then spent years honing my skills by playing in country bands.

Studying Winnie's book and playing all those old songs in those bands laid the foundation on which I was able to build, and learn play the classical and rock stuff.

I don't play country music any more, (except at jams.) It's not my thing and never really was. but if I hadn't studied and played it for years, I seriously doubt that I could play either Stravinsky or Hendrix today.

BTW I feel that my West Side Story CD is the better of the 2, and if you're only going to buy one of them, I recommend that one.

Charlie McDonald · Post by **Charlie McDonald** » 1 Nov 2005 4:02 am

As I read it, Jim's post is saying that the Mel Bay book and the Winston book came as a package, and he's referring to the Bay book, and I've heard the same thing about it. I don't see that he's knocking Winnie's instruction, viewed by many as among the best.

But that's the point with me; not all of it speaks to me. The DVD I just sold, I didn't really get anything out of it at all.
Not the same with Joe Wright's videos.

Buying used, for a budget guy like me, is a way to find out where I want to put my money. Selling what doesn't work for me is a way to keep instructional materials going around, so that others can determine what works best for them, rather than keeping them to gather dust.

Excellent topic, Mike.
Personally, I learn the most from good steel music, like Kaphan, Smith, and Alcorn, and am ordering West Side Story today. Can't wait to hear it.
That's how I learn, by enjoying. And all the cd's are keepers.

jim milewski · Post by **jim milewski** » 1 Nov 2005 7:22 am

Mike is right, those basic old melodic songs teach us the steel, how it all comes together with positions and so forth, no matter what type of music you play the basics are after all "basic" and most valuable. It's hard to imagine there will be another book like Winnies was.

David Mason · Post by **David Mason** » 1 Nov 2005 7:53 am

I kind of doubt that Stravinsky or Hendrix had to learn "Red River Valley" as a prerequisite for the rest of their education, and they seemed to overcome that handicap well enough...

Jim Sliff · Post by **Jim Sliff** » 1 Nov 2005 7:54 am

"Jim you are 100& wrong about Winnie Winston's book."

Hoew can one be wrong about an opinion?

My point was both these books (and I didn't get them as a package - I had the Winston books years ago with my first aborted attempt at steel) use materials that were crumbling to dust when I was a kid, and are not "instrument" focused but "style" focused - i.e. traditional country. Yes, one might learn some basics from either one, but for me to try to get down the nuances of The Wreck of the Old 97 is musically ridiculous.

Mike, you said you honed your chops playing in country bands, although you didn't particularly care for it. Two questions:

1. Why would you play music you don't like?
2. Isn't that known as "selling out"?

Earnest Bovine · Post by **Earnest Bovine** » 1 Nov 2005 9:50 am

1. Why would you play music you don't like?

It helps you to meet girls you don't like.

Charlie McDonald · Post by **Charlie McDonald** » 1 Nov 2005 12:36 pm

Sorry to have misinterpreted your post, Jim. I guess those of use that speak English don't really need an interpreter.
Or maybe I do sometimes.

Mike Perlowin · Post by **Mike Perlowin** » 1 Nov 2005 12:56 pm

How can one be wrong about an opinion?

When the opinion about the value of something runs counter to the experience of thousands of people.

Why would you play music you don't like?

The answer is that I WANTED TO LEARN HOW TO PLAY THE PEDAL STEEL GUITAR! Playing country music for 4 hours a night, anywhere between 2 and 6 nights a week, for more years than I wish to think about was the best way to learn.

Once I learned the instrument, I was able to use that knowledge to play different kinds of music. But I had to get educated first. Playing country music provided that education. It is the foundation on which I built my technique and understanding of the instrument.

Jom, of you feel compelled to try to learn this beast without benifit of the knowledge and experience of those who came before, I'm, not going to try to force you to do other wise, but I think you're making a mistake.

Oh, and Ernest, I met Carol and Mary at a bar gig and we all....uh....never mind.

[This message was edited by Mike Perlowin on 01 November 2005 at 12:57 PM.]

Post by **Dave Mudgett** » 1 Nov 2005 1:34 pm

I said that it depends on what you mean by "instructional ideas."

Of course, it depends on what are "instructional ideas". I teach for a living (computer and information sciences, not music), and I can't claim the knowledge for most things I teach as my own.

[Aside: I have sometimes taught subjects that included my own research, and some of the ideas were original, but for most teachers, this is the exception, not the rule.]

But the presentation of general knowledge or someone else's ideas may be original. That's the "value" I'm talking about. I still say the "value" of instructional material does not primarily reside within the physical medium (disk, tape, LP), but within the ideas contained on it. Again, the method of presentation PLUS the techniques, methods, etc., discussed constitutes an original piece of work. Otherwise, such work wouldn't be eligible for copyright. Original ideas themselves (for example a mathematical algorithm) are eligible for patent, not copyright. It's the presentation that is the issue here. Good point of clarification, Travis, although I hold a different point of view than the one you stated.

I'm with Mike on the idea that learning music is less dependent on what style one plays than learning how to play, whatever style it is. Once one learns how to play music on an instrument, it's possible to change and focus on a different style. I can't tell you how many rock shredders I've known who can run dozens of shredding modal scales up and down the neck at breakneck tempo, but if I asked them to play a simple melody, they had no clue. They simply focused intently on a completely stylized thing, and not on learning a large palette of techniques to play music. It's about playing music, IMO.

I have a good friend, a fine jazz guitar player and teacher. He was asked by a student if he needed to spend lots of time "running scales and modes every day". My friend replied "It's important to learn how to play music on your instrument. The only mode I worry about is 'pie a la mode'".

Cliff Kane · Post by **Cliff Kane** » 1 Nov 2005 2:06 pm

Why don't y'all sell your used learning material and give the money to the author as a form of support, or return the material to the author so that they can sell used material at a reduced rate for people looking for used material?

John Ummel · Post by **John Ummel** » 1 Nov 2005 3:26 pm

I'll bet Jimi coulda done a killer version of Red River Valley!

[This message was edited by John Ummel on 01 November 2005 at 03:29 PM.]