Standout Standardization

Charlie McDonald · Post by **Charlie McDonald** » 15 Feb 2006 6:37 am

The more I read, the more I'm confused about the topic.

Aren't 'standardization' and 'standout' mutually exclusive?

Terry Edwards · Post by **Terry Edwards** » 15 Feb 2006 9:52 am

I am having difficulty finding a "standard" between two knecks on the same instrument!

Learning C6 is almost like learning a new instrument for me.

Maybe we are expecting too much from this multi-faceted instrument with regard to standards. (E9, C6, Universal, Emmons vs. Day setup, custom levers, etc.)

I can't think of any other instrument that is this unique. Two pedal steel guitarists could actually be playing two entirely different instruments.

Terry

Post by **Dave Mudgett** » 15 Feb 2006 11:00 am

Aren't 'standardization' and 'standout' mutually exclusive?

I don't think so. The piano has been pretty standardized for a long time. Virtuoso pianists have things like the Rachmaninoff competition and other venues to hone their chops and display their prowess, against given a given standard. But I think it's hard to argue that this has severely limited the type of music played on a piano. IMO, the only limitation is in the mind of the player. Some play only the music of dead European composers, but many do other things.

Perhaps this kind of approach would focus too much attention on technical prowess. Sometimes, some of the most meaningful music, to me, is made by people who are not technical virtuosos. Nonetheless, most of the great music I hear is made by people who really play well.

Set theoretically, what I hear being argued is whether or not the set-theoretic intersection of steel players' skills should have a core mastery of certain things, much like classically-trained pianists insist on. I'm not really sure whether I agree or not. I agree for myself - that there is a core set of pedal steel skills that I need to master. But I'm not sure that it's reasonable to project that on the entire universe of steel players. I think this projection is what sometimes sets us at each others' throats in the RR, JG, and other contentious threads.

Bill Hankey · Post by **Bill Hankey** » 15 Feb 2006 11:51 am

[This message was edited by Bill Hankey on 17 February 2006 at 03:41 AM.]

Jim Cohen · Post by **Jim Cohen** » 15 Feb 2006 12:03 pm

Unless one of you was playing open strings, that should have been easily compensated by playing a little sharp or flat of the fret, no? It needn't have been such a disaster...

Al Vescovo · Post by **Al Vescovo** » 15 Feb 2006 1:25 pm

The only standard I see for the Steel-Pedal Steel Guitar is Bar manipulation and Picking technique. The tuning, type of guitar and the selection of music is left to the performer.

George McLellan · Post by **George McLellan** » 15 Feb 2006 1:37 pm

Mr. Hankey, may I ask if you were playing with a backup band or any type of music back up? I can't imagine anyone being that far off pitch and not realize it. Certainly I can see where you are coming from about both steels being out of tune with each other. IMHO the other steeler should have compensated imediatly to the back up, if you were in tune with them.

Geo

Larry Bell · Post by **Larry Bell** » 15 Feb 2006 2:40 pm

why did you get the 'cane' and he didn't?

------------------
Larry Bell - email: larry@larrybell.org - gigs - Home Page
2003 Fessenden S/D-12 8x8, 1969 Emmons S/D-12 6x6, 1984 Sho-Bud S/D-12 7x6, 1971 Dobro, Standel and Peavey Amps

Harold Dye · Post by **Harold Dye** » 15 Feb 2006 2:47 pm

with a little luck this thread can zoom past the ZB thread which is 24 pages and 956 posts.
Now..to standardize or not to standardize..Is that the question? I forgot

Bill Hankey · Post by **Bill Hankey** » 15 Feb 2006 2:59 pm

[This message was edited by Bill Hankey on 16 February 2006 at 04:28 AM.][This message was edited by Bill Hankey on 17 February 2006 at 03:48 AM.]

Ian Finlay · Post by **Ian Finlay** » 15 Feb 2006 3:01 pm

I think I may get what Bill's talking about. I can pick up anyone else's guitar and play. I can sit at any piano and play. I can pick up any bass and play.

However, guitarists extend the range of the instument's capabilities with dropped tunings, altered tunings, 12 string instuments and even wierd things like the Stratosphere (I want one if anyone's selling one BTW!).

Piano players use a piano-like interface to an electronic instrument, with different tunings (microtonal anyone?), sounds etc. All patches are different and personal to the creator.

5-string bass? Short scale bass? Chapman stick (bass-like)? And let's not even talk drum kits, and the way they're set up.

One thing I LOVE about the steel is that it's MY instrument, and MINE only. If a 10 string E9 player sat at my Fender 1000 A6 neck with the pedals my way, he may have to work for a while to figure it out (the well-known geniuses excepted). So what? I played last week and John Davis came along. He told me that he couldn't get the sounds I got from his E9 neck. I can't get his E9 sounds from my A6. And? I'm not bothered by this. So I can't sit in with a band playing modern country and replicate the licks on records. Maybe an E9 player would find it hard to get "that" sound for Western Swing and Hilbilly that I like.

To me it's a different instrument for a different purpose.

Maybe this is a bit like saying all women should look like Miss World entrants. Nice in theory, but I prefer women to be shorter than me and a bit more cuddly. Like my Wife in fact. I don't need to be able to exchange her for another near-identical model. I'm happy with the one I have!

Ian

Charlie McDonald · Post by **Charlie McDonald** » 15 Feb 2006 3:01 pm

I can see the Rachmaninoff competition thing. A pianist relies on a certain standard of quality in an instrument. High dollar instruments are used in such competitions; and a pianist better play a good one too, or he's going to be uncomfortable. That's how I think of standardization.

But steel players carry their instruments around. At a big competition, they would insist on having their own axe, as there seems to be much individualization.

In both cases, the performer is trying to be a standout.
So is the topic exploring the idea of pedal steel competitions? Interesting....

David Doggett · Post by **David Doggett** » 15 Feb 2006 3:56 pm

Bobbe Seymour has in the past suggested a competition where everyone plays a Maverick (S10 E9 3&1). They do that sort of identical-equipment competition in car and sailboat racing. I guess that would be a good way to settle who has the most basic competence. But what's the real point of that? As far as being in the audience, I'd much rather hear people playing what they are best at with their own unique and familiar rigs.

As far as standard equipment for beginners, I think there are presently 4 standards for pedal steel: E9, C6, Universal and Sacred Steel. Each one of those has a certain core tuning, pedals and levers that are adequate for beginners. In addition to that core, experienced players typically add a few extral personal options that don't seem to me to detract from the core. So for me this standardization issue is not that big a deal - as long as beginners are steered to one of the cores (depending on the type of music they want to learn), and are not given some beat up piece of junk with a really unique setup that is far from any of the standard cores.

------------------
Student of the Steel: Zum uni, Fender tube amps, squareneck and roundneck resos, tenor sax, keyboards

Bill Hankey · Post by **Bill Hankey** » 16 Feb 2006 8:46 am

Gentlemen,

Thank you for remaining faithful to ALL players of the steel guitar. I have spent many hours jamming and trading "licks" for years with other players at all levels. While trying to reconnoiter the effects of a negative input, it is clear that the members of this Forum deserve a great amount of respect.

Bill

Pat Kelly · Post by **Pat Kelly** » 16 Feb 2006 6:11 pm

obverse

?[This message was edited by Pat Kelly on 16 February 2006 at 06:13 PM.]

Charlie McDonald · Post by **Charlie McDonald** » 17 Feb 2006 6:06 am

Obverse: the other side of the coin.