The Steel Guitar Forum

Brad. I noticed your post, and I must now claim my thinking behind tuning straight up is the simplest available. I said this before. Don't nobody overestimate me. Just cause I Cypher pretty good, don't mean I can Reckon worth a durn...

You'r right about "Power Chords" omitting the thirds, and yes they are "muddy" because they are usually distorted on the guitar and the beats in properly tuned thirds totally mess up a good smooth distortion. The thirds when added must be "detuned" to "fit". Much like PSG thirds. I don't play them on guitar and don't center my playing around thirds, because I won't detune to minimize beats. On a guitar, you're then liable to play out of that one position and that one chord, and your screwed.

On a psg, people might think that they aren't because they don't use distortion, and they have dicked around with enough of their other changes that it will all be covered up in complexity, or compensatory mechanical rubegoldbergaters. Then come the single note runs. There, it must be thusly let that 25 cents is not important when the dicked with change shows up. I don't buy it. I hear it all the time.

I rely heavily on Ocatves and Root fifths. A lot of steel backup that I play, and I notice others' playing is root fifth, "Bakersfieldy".

I play many wide 10 5 3 spilts, and I notice that "in the basement" they sound slightly "obtuse". I MANY times play the same wide "Charlie Pride", Emmy Lou type wide chords at full volume, on jobs, and they sound fine, and not sloppy. Not Justly Intonated at all.

A lot of "tuning" is "subjective". Especially at live stage playing volume. In the basement, or the studio I notice more "beats".

Some of it might even be "Suggestive". I used to browbeat a poor Yammie Minigrand player to distraction. Even when he played an electronic. Poor guy.. an Aries too.. Does it work on crowds? I dunno. I see people do it with other things..

Tuning in the center of the tuner, in my experience, is going to put you closer consistently to things you can adjust for with the left hand.

I suppose cabinet drop is similar. My Bud has very little, ( and the Marrs I have coming next year even less..) but if it works for your G#s with the Bs down, it has got to be true for the opposite. Similarly for the E's, up and down. and then there's the C pedal. Then there's the F#s... Where do you "stop"?

I suppose there are guitars that have less than my Pro III, and I envy those that own one. If there are ones, and I'm sure there are, that are worse, I wouldn't want one. I've tried a couple that were. I didn't buy them.

I have read the whole thread so far since I asked for it, and I see many complex explanations that I had thought of, and some that I have not.

I feel lucky that the simplistic answers I came up with "on my own" over the years, have survived most, if not all of the complex scrutiny. Lucky.

Complexity could have indeed have made it as one of the Seven Deadly Sins, had the others not worked out so well..

Thanks, all from the Top on down to me and mine.

I've gotten my answer.

I'll play my little weekend and summer jobs knowing that tuning straight up, all strings all changes, is probably the best I'm going to do.

Some of them turn out damn good.

Hopefully this weekend with the John Henry Band at Jubitz will. Artie Bechtel will be on guitar, and Beth Henry will be playing her keyboard. It sounded pretty good the last time I played with them.




EJL

<FONT SIZE=1 COLOR="#8e236b"><p align=CENTER>[This message was edited by Eric West on 28 May 2004 at 06:57 PM.]</p></FONT>

Eric, the ears have it after all. I and many others remember trying to tune in the 60's to a Farfisa mini compact, me and another guitarist and a bass. We would all hit D and hope for the best, we were never in tune! Add to that our equipment, which at that time we knew nothing about oiling nuts, or how to wrap strings. I would have given anything to have a tuner! Another great thread on this great forum. JimP

Tune it the way that sounds good to your ears.

That’s the way I do it, especially when I have to work with a piano, which is 99.99% of the time.

and how does it end up?

You wouldn't believe your ears. <FONT SIZE=1 COLOR="#8e236b"><p align=CENTER>[This message was edited by Buddy Emmons on 28 May 2004 at 08:07 AM.]</p></FONT>

If I had yours I would

Thanks, Carl and Eric, for the input.

Seems I've spent twice as much time tuning this week as I have playing. But, I am learning that my ears can trick me. What sounds in tune alone, doesn't with a CD or a live band. It appears I'm moving closer to a hybrid between JI and ET.

ps. I do love my new LeGrande III.

Tony

<SMALL>Bach did us a huge service and disservice at the same time by developing ET.</SMALL>

Bach didn't develop ET. I think that most of his music was written for various meantone temperaments. I've used meantone and I really like its sound for some things. See the tuning chart for F Diatonic on this page.

For reference, here's a simple tune that uses meantone: http://soundhost.net/b0b/radio/Waltz_in_C.b0b.mp3

You can hear that the thirds have a mellow, JI kind of blend to them, but the 4ths and 5ths shimmer more than they do in ET. That's the compromise of meantone.

The "out of scale" notes in meantone can be pretty horrendous, making it unacceptable for some 12-tone music forms. Bach was the master of dancing around those "wolf" tones.

------------------
<font size="1"><img align=right src="http://b0b.com/Hotb0b.gif" width="96 height="96">Bobby Lee - email: quasar@b0b.com - gigs - CDs, Open Hearts
Sierra Session 12 (E9), Williams 400X (Emaj9, D6), Sierra Olympic 12 (C6add9),
Sierra Laptop 8 (E6add9), Fender Stringmaster (E13, A6),
Roland Handsonic, Line 6 Variax</font>

<SMALL>Bach did us a huge service and disservice at the same time by developing ET.</SMALL>

The Chinese were familiar with ET around 3000 years ago, but thought it sounded bad.

Equal temperment was a "solution" to the chromatic harmonies on fixed pitch instruments, that were coming into vogue in the 17th century.

I wish I had half the smarts of all you people, but unfortunately I don't, so I tune straight-up and have never had a complaint or have I been dissatisfied with the sound or tuning aspects. Over fifty years of experience and that is all I have is experience, so I do what is best for me. I wish I could tell everyone else what is best for them. There is no end to this topic and Eric titled it well "Tuning Armaggedon"!
I had never heard of Buddy Emmons until I joined the Steel Guitar Forum and he sounds like one smart fellow, so I feel good that I have always done it the way a professional does.

<SMALL>Bach didn't develop ET. I think that most of his music was written for various meantone temperaments.</SMALL>

I believe all his organ music probably was, but "The Well-Tempered Clavier" is now pretty conclusively thought (as you may know, b0b) to have been composed to demonstrate how a genre of tuning systems, known as "Well Temperament," were usable in all twelve keys, although each key has its own character.

The Well Temperaments occupy a space chronologically and theoretically between Meantone and Equal Temperament.

Orthodoxy taught until fairly recently that "The Well-Tempered Clavier" was written to show the superiority of Equal Temperament, but consider this:

If someone wanted to prove how a tuning system made any composition work equally well in all keys (Isn't that the point of Equal Temperament?) wouldn't they just compose one highly-varied work and transpose it to all the different keys?

Instead, The Well-Tempered Clavier is a collection of works that clearly seem to highlight the beauty and character (while avoiding the weaknesses) of each key, as it would be tuned in Well Temperament.

This subject was discussed pretty deeply in a couple of threads several months ago, and I searched and collected a large number of articles and pages that discussed this issue. I didn't find a single informed and up-to-date source that defended the idea that The Well-Tempered Clavier was written to defend Equal Temperament. I learned this false notion in a piano tuning program as late as 1979. I then "preached" that idea for years.

This is just one of the bazillion pages available on this subject:

http://home.earthlink.net/~kgann/histune.html

Fifty years seems a long time to be playing steel guitar without ever hearing about Buddy Emmons. Maybe you should get out more.

Hi Richard!
I spent my life raising five kids and caring for my one wife. Worked six days a week and played 2 and 3 nights a week to do that. I didn't have time to learn what or who others were doing. I started playing for dances when I was 15 and that was 56 years ago. In 1972 I purchased my first pedal steel and learned to play it without instruction from anyone else. I never had the time or privelege to copy or find out who was a master at steel guitar. My main focus was to provide for a very deserving family that was my life and still is my life. Next year I celebrate 50 years of marriage. I am the luckiest man in the world. I don't think that makes me any less of a person because I don't get around much then or now.
Hope that helps you understand why I said what I said about Buddy Emmons.

Robert,
I am humbled by your reply and apologise for my rather brash comments.
R B.

Richard, I think you are a nice person for your comment. I was not upset, but wanted you to understand why I didn't get out much.
By the way and this is way off the topic, my wife and I have 14 grand-children and 3 great grand-children with one more due in June. My question is, will this ever stop? My cup runneth over.
Have a nice day and a great life.

Robert, by "Will this ever stop?" did you mean the grand kids and the love, or the JI vs. ET Armaggedon? The answer is no, either way.

You have my admiration for what you have done. I went back to school, got married and had four kids; but I had to quit playing music to do it. Now I'm back playing, and loving it all. <FONT SIZE=1 COLOR="#8e236b"><p align=CENTER>[This message was edited by David Doggett on 01 June 2004 at 08:52 AM.]</p></FONT>

So. Now have we determined which tuning method is correct?

------------------
Lee, from South Texas
Down On The Rio Grande

No, I don't think it will ever stop, but I detect that there is a right way and that is the way each individual determines which way is right for him.
I think some people like to know what others think! There are a lot of newcomers out there wondering what would be best for them and this way they find out the different ways and use the tuning method that suits them best.
Does that make sense? My brain can accept only so much and then it overloads! Now my mouth is starting to overload.
Everyone have a nice life and don't take things too seriously, have fun and make beautiful music, Steel Guitar Music that is!

See what did I say?
OVERLOAD!!!!!

Hey, what's another post among friends. Check out the link below for a discourse on the history of the JI / ET debate.
http://www.justintonation.net/primer2.html

------------------
Jeff's Jazz

<SMALL>Partch developed a system of Just Intonation with 43 tones to the octave, built a large ensemble of predominantly stringed and percussion instruments to play in this tuning system.</SMALL>

I would think that 48 would be a rounder number and then color coding might be more adaptable. Sight reading times 12 anyone?

According to Mr Drummond, the inventor of the ZOOMOOZOPHONE. Presumably it was because he stopped arbitrarily at the 11th harmonic.

I'm thinking I might rethink my "straight up" system...

Or not..

EJL

Gee.and i always thought ET stood for Ernest Tubb.Okay okay,i'm going.

"Extra Terrestrial"

I have a possible solution to all these tuning threads !
If you learn how to play in tune by training your ears it really doesn't mattter what tuning approach you use.

steelguitarforum.com/Forum18/HTML/000090.html

Bob