The Steel Guitar Forum

Hi Bob,
A bit off the tuning topic:
What brand is the $150 guitar that you now have?
I'm looking for a 12 electric to use on demo's, but have a (very) limited budget.
I'm considering Danelectro reissues and Daisy Rock (geez ..! LOL)
Any thoughts?
Thanks,
Lee

Ok People, If most people DON'T have perfect pitch and super hearing,playing perfect pitch would sound off to most people. So is perfect pitch perfect?( try to say that 10 times without stopping)most people would not hear it the some way. So being right on would be off to most ears,that don't have perfect pitch. The majority rules.Play out of tune you,will have more friends . Joe

Bob, I'm just guessing, but maybe the overtones on your electrics work okay with ET, and certainly ET will allow you to have more acceptable intonation across the neck with all chords and keys. Maybe the acoustic guitars have particular overtones that accentuate the beats, and so sound better closer to JI - but of course you have to retune for different keys.

Your 12-string tuning method sounds suspiciously like you are stretching the tuning sharper up high, and flatter down low. If you look at that stretch tuning curve Eric posted, in some octaves you can see a noticeable amount of stretch even between notes a single octave apart. I have noticed on my pedal steel that if I tune both Es exactly straight up by my Boss meter, my ear wants to hear that top E tweaked just a little sharp of the meter. So I'm thinking we are putting a little stretch in our tunings.

Joe, by "perfect pitch" do you mean ET or JI? I don't have perfect pitch, but my understanding is that they do not hear just a single "perfect" pitch, i.e., just ET or just JI. Rather, they can hear all the pitches, and tell you whether it is ET or JI or something else. So someone with perfect pitch could tune an instrument by ear to ET, JI or anything else. They could set the tuning to please themselves, or to please the listener. If the person with perfect pitch and the listener prefer the same thing (e.g., JI), then there would be no conflict, and both would be happy.<font size="1" color="#8e236b"><p align="center">[This message was edited by David Doggett on 28 April 2005 at 09:17 AM.]</p></FONT>

David Doggett,

Thank you for putting all this into perspective. I had the meat cleaver ready to go - whew! that was close!!

All these years I thought I was just bad at tuning - guitars, mandolin, bass, banjos, steel guitars. I just figured I had bad ears!

You have given us all a few things to think about and maybe some of us won't beat ourselves up too bad now for not being "perfectly in tune" in every key on every song all the time in every band with every instrument in all genres for eternity...

Thanks again,

Terry <font size="1" color="#8e236b"><p align="center">[This message was edited by Terry Edwards on 28 April 2005 at 06:05 PM.]</p></FONT>

Bob.Hope this helps.When you tune a 6 string guitar 440 with a tuner it is in tune because a tuner is programed for the tempered tuning.If you then put a freq counter in line you would see the strings are not 440.I posted ths somewhere once but wll again.The best example i have ever read about steels and tuners is,a tuner is to quickly retune a steel to a tuning you decided on your own was an intune sound

There are two things that I do that seem to help immensely, when tuning in the studio. One is to follow the Jeff Newman/Lloyd Green idea of tuning the E string 1-2 cents sharp, and then tuning the rest of the strings to that E. Because of tempered tuning, that puts the steel more in tune to the other instruments. Second idea, if that doesn't work, sometimes when the tune is in F for example, try tuning the E string to the track (put your bar on the first fret) and ignore your tuner. Then tune your guitar to the E string.

I agree with Robbie Springfield that the steel is difficult to keep in tune, but we should just do whatever it takes to get close. Most of it is our bad technique anyway, as the greats almost always sound good. Joe

Eric, I didn’t see your questions until now. I can’t answer all of them, but I’ll take a stab at some.

<SMALL>Is there, or could there be a scale or musical system that would or could incorporate only notes which when combined together would have no overtones or "beats"?</SMALL>

Certainly the diatonic JI scale cannot do this. The main chords (I, IV, V7, VIm, IIm) are beatless or very close, because they all have roots and 5ths that are straight up to each other, major 3rds and 7ths that are about 14 cents flat, and minor 3rds and 7ths that are about 14 cents sharp – all as beatless JI chords require. But the II major chord has a too flat 5th, because it uses the 6th note of the scale, which is about 16 cents flat of the 2nd note used as the root. A steel guitar can keep that interval right by simply moving the I chord up two frets with the bar. But a JI tuned piano in C could not play a good D major chord. So keyboards don’t just need ET to change keys, but also to get good chords within a single key.

<SMALL>How many notes would there be in it?</SMALL>

I take this question to mean, let’s add an additional 6th note (call it 6a) to take care of that II major chord. How many such notes would you have to add to take care of all possible chords? Mechanically it would be impractical, and that’s why they invented the ET scale. Possibly a modern computer could do this. You could program in 12 major chords and 12 minors, and the computer could give you good intervals for each one, as long as you tell it what the root is. At the worst, you would need a different 3rd and 5th for each chord, so 24x2=48 additional notes. But the main chords are already okay without additional notes, and some of the others would end up with the same note, so you would seem to need something less than 60 notes. I don’t know what happens if you consider 9ths, 11ths, 13ths, diminished and augmented chords.

<SMALL>A couple of over-reaching premises jump right out. One is that "the ears (of violinists) lead them to JI". All of them? Do they tune in "beatless fifths"?</SMALL>

With no keyboards present, I think all trained Western musicians ears will guide them to the sweet JI harmonies. Some other cultures have other harmonies. Dan is right that in African derived music there is a whole world between the flatted 3rd and the major third. I don’t know if violinists count beats when they tune. But JI and ET 5ths and 4ths are essentially the same. By not having any fixed 3rds the orchestral strings avoid a lot of the problems guitars have. Horns don’t have any fixed pitches, except for the double reeds (I’m told). How do the double reeds (oboe, English horn, bassoon) work out in an orchestra? Good question.

<SMALL>*If an open string happens to be the third of the key, that third will be ET when played open, but might also be played JI by fretting an adjacent string by ear. Orchestral strings tend to prefer fretting rather than open strings, partly to avoid the JI/ET conflict, but also to apply vibrato.* Do they? Do Vassar or Buddy S avoid thirds on open strings?</SMALL>

Well, we need some violinists and fiddlers to jump in here. My informal observation is that classical string players put vibrato on every long note, so they gotta be avoiding some open strings sometimes. I also have to believe that if a particular open string sounds off in a particular key, good violinists and fiddlers will tend to avoid that open string, at least for sustained harmony. Who knows, maybe some will tweak that string the same way many guitarists do. What I think we can count on is that string players do not play all their notes ET by ear to avoid these problems. It seems they play JI to the extend they can, and compromise to ET when they have to. And I don’t think they are thinking about all this from note to note. They just try to play as in tune as possible, the same way steelers do.

<SMALL>OK. I must ask. A famous player has stated that he tunes STRICTLY ET as he has for the last twenty years,(now nearly twenty one) in the most black and white terms possible. Does he play in "J.I." because that's where his ears must lead him?</SMALL>

Buddy Emmons has said he sometimes flats his thirds a little. That ain’t ET. Nevertheless, maybe sometimes he tunes everything straight up ET. It is pretty clear his ears can guide him to play ET when he needs to and also JI when he needs to. He is a master musician in complete control. Buddy plays a complicated copedant and complicated chords. He wants them ALL to work as good as possible. For his purposes it makes sense to him to use the same compromise keyboards do to achieve that goal, ET. However, in tuning mostly ET, he is a minority among top pro steelers. So the top authorities don’t seem to have settled this issue, and the rest of us are likewise left to our own preferences. Symphony orchestras have been dealing with this problem for centuries. I think we should do what they do – play JI to the extent that we can, and play ET to the extent that we have to. It does not seem necessary to choose exclusively one or the other all the time.

<SMALL>Is it impossible for a person's ears to be trained to strict ET? How long would it take in deacdes?</SMALL>

It is certainly possible to train your ear to hear ET. Even I can do it to some extent. If I want JI, I tune the thirds so they sound sweet (I don’t consciously count beats). If I want ET I tune the 3rds just sharp of sweet, and when I check the meter it is very close to ET (at least it is closer to ET than to JI). I would think someone who always tunes ET would learn to hit it very close by ear. But I would imagine that is more difficult than learning to hear JI, which most Western musicians seem to learn automatically. Whether I could play ET on the fly with no other reference ET instrument playing at the same time, I don’t know. But I would imagine some people can learn to do that. I don’t think many musicians think about this stuff when they play. They just try to play in tune with whatever else is going on. If it is mostly ET they will try to match it, and if it is JI they will try to match that.

Now, Eric, let’s move beyond the thinly veiled questions and get to the heart of our disagreement. You always claim that it is simpler just to tune everything straight up by the meter and not have to worry about whether a note is a 3rd or not while you are tuning and playing. Aside from the fact that tuning ET sounds bad to me and ruins my enjoyment of playing, I can tune faster and simpler by ear than if I have to check every string and stop with a meter. So tuning JI by ear accomplishes two things at once for me. It sounds better and is easier to do. If I can’t tune by ear and have to use a meter, I know to tune my 2nd, 3rd and 6th strings 3 hz or 12 cents flat, all the rest are straight up (Actually I tune open strings 1 hz or 4 cents sharp. I know I have 2 hz or 8 cents cabinet drop with the pedals down. So tuning 1 hz sharp with the pedals off splits the difference of my cabinet drop between the pedals down and pedals up positions). This takes no more time or worry than tuning every string straight up. I tune my pedal and knee stops very carefully by ear at home, and usually don’t have to mess with them out on a gig. If I did have to tune these with a meter, I could think through most of them and get them JI (basically, major 3rds and 7ths are 3 hz or 12 cents flat, and minor 3rds and 7ths are the same amount sharp). It’s not higher math. The worst that could happen is that I don’t remember this and have to tune something straight up. Then a small part of my copedant would temporarily have the same dissonance your whole copedant has all the time. This does not seem like an insurmountable problem that makes me want to throw my hands up and tune everything straight up all the time.

And those of us who tune JI do not worry about where the thirds are while playing. We just play and try to keep it in tune. Fortunately the standard pedal steel copedants make it possible to automatically play the main chords JI by having pedal and lever stops that tune independently from strings (as I described in some detail above). If there are some less used chords that are a little dissonant, that is a small sacrifice I pay to keep my main chords sounding sweet. Your choice of making all the chords sound dissonant simply does not appeal to me and many others. Neither of us is wrong on this, we just choose to make different compromises.

Now about playing with other instruments tuned ET. Strings, horns, vocalists and countless steelers have played their variable pitch instruments acceptably with fixed pitch instruments. To this day, most pro steelers tune JI and play acceptably in the studio with pianos and ET-tuned guitars and basses – in fact some studio bosses insist on JI for the steel – ask Bruce Bouton. Jim Cohen has posted on the Forum that he tried both tuning methods with a piano in a studio. The consensus in the studio was that the steel sounded better tuned JI than ET. Does every steeler do this as well as Jim Cohen – I doubt it. Would some other steelers sound better tuned ET with the piano – quite possibly. The point is that it is simply not obvious that every steel guitarist must tune entirely ET to play with ET instruments.

I’m not trying to convince anyone who tunes ET to stop doing so. There are completely legitimate reasons for tuning a steel ET. If that works for some people, fine. But I am trying to counter the idea that those of us who tune JI must be crazy and tone deaf, and that we have to struggle to remember 3rds while we are playing, and other insanely complicated stuff. It just ain’t so. Anyone who chooses to tune either ET or JI has some good legitimate reasons for doing so, and has lots of good company. No one should ever have to feel apologetic about what works for them.<font size="1" color="#8e236b"><p align="center">[This message was edited by David Doggett on 29 April 2005 at 03:21 AM.]</p></FONT>

All this is very interesting. It raises a question, however, in that what I would like explained hasn't been touched on yet.

Here's my dilemma. Having been playing for over 40 years, and having been listening a <u>lot</u> longer, I must say I notice more "name" steelers that sound "out" (to me) than I ever did 40 years ago. As a matter of fact, I can't remember <u>any</u> famous steeler back in the '60s that sounded "out" to me!

But today, it's a different story. Strings are better, guitars are better, tuners are better, amps are better, and...we've had 40 years to get our collective act together. We should be sounding a whole lot better. Still, there's no denying that "pitchy" quality I'm hearing from some "name" steelers nowadays.

So, has anyone else noticed this? Maybe I'm alone in this observation.

Is it just me???

(Before I get slammed, I should probably say that I'm aware Paul Franklin does the majority of session work today. It's not <u>his</u> playing that I have a problem with.)

Hey Guys,,

I'd like to take a little time here and thank Bob C. for opening this Thread, and all of ya'll who have offered exlpainations, opinions, technics, tuning methods, and much more. Even though it did get a little "heated" at times, the information is what I was wanting, as I'm sure that was what Bob C. was wanting also.

Even though I had developed a method for tuning that satisfied my tuner, and my ear, [some what] I still had tuning issues I didn't know how to deal with. I was stumbling around in the dark, not knowing how to ask the questions I wanted answers to.

Since I'm not one who is Blessed, or Cursed, which ever it might be, with perfect pitch, I've had to rely on my tuner to get me through the gate, then my ear to sweetin it up to where I could live with it.

Even though I have "chirped" in with my Off sense of humor here and there, I have been following these post really close. I know I won't remember it all, but quite a lot of the points metioned I've made it a point to retain.

Through out this thread, I've taken time to run out to the studio, and try something that was mentioned, and I think things are going to be better from here on out.

Once again, thanks Bob C. for opening up this can of worms!! And thanks every one for some needed information and thoughts..

Eric, you could e-mail me your "secret tuning chart" I wouldn't tell any one!! LOL...

Larry


------------------
Emmons S/D-10, 3/4, Sessions 400 Ltd. Home Grown E/F Rack
"ROCKIN COUNTRY"

Donny, I don't hear the "out of tuneness" you are referring to. Maybe I'm not listening to the right songs, but on the top 40 stuff, most everybody sounds pretty in tune to my ears. I have noticed some steelers are tuning their thirds sharper than in past, but my ears are accustomed to this. I also believe more steelers in the past tuned "beatless" or near beatless from a refrence tone of either E-330 or A-440 and actually sounded quite flat to me. I believe the steelers today who tune to a beatless or near "just" tuning and start with their E's 8-10 cents sharp, sound more in tune to me, or maybe it's just my ears.....Regards, Carson <font size="1" color="#8e236b"><p align="center">[This message was edited by Carson Leighton on 30 April 2005 at 05:28 AM.]</p></FONT>

DD

Here's the latest direct quote I can find.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica">quote:</font><HR><SMALL>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-</SMALL><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

That's exactly where the camel entered the tent..

I am totally slammed for time tonight btween work/gig, and I'll redirect as many points as I can if I disagree with more than your "Buddy Does it" attempt, apon my gaining of an hour or two of free time tomorrow.

What I notice being slipped in subtly, is the IMHO overuse of "everybody" or "The Studio" or "all players", et al. I understand most of your points, and your posts, except for the need for questionable, or otherwuse unnecessarily leading premise or postulation..

It is masterful use of several debating tools such as the "false premise" the "defacto endorsement", "forcing tacet acceptance" and a few others, whereby, black, after a fashion, is no longer black, white is no longer white, and "up and down" somehow switch positions with no appearant seam in gravitational shift..

It's good, and you have a friendly way of disagreeing with somebody without telling them how important you are, or insulting your victim ( I couldn't help that one..) so I don't mind in the least having these forays with someone of your courtesy.

When you inadvertently gain allies that might deign to cut me into ribbons, I don't take being done on your beckoning, and I deal well with sideliners.

Gotta run.

Believe me I'm tickled and pleased that you take the time to parlay different takes on things with me.



EJL

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica">quote:</font><HR><SMALL>When Bach wrote his two books of Well Tempered Clavier music, he meant 'well' not 'even' as is commonly misrepresented. In other words, every key was meant to have a distinct personality and sound; whereas today, every key in equal temperament is identical - every semitone difference between each note is identical. -Veryan Weston and Jon Rose-


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

I threw this in because I don't buy it, for one, and it was only a matter of time before some obfuscatory source would tell us that JS Bach did not indeed propose "equal temperament".

</SMALL><HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Any reason why you don't buy it, Eric? See, back a ways I did an extensive internet search on the subject, and I couldn't find a single source -- at least not one up on the data behind what (FYI) is the opinion of far more than a single "obfuscatory source," that still holds to the view that Bach wrote "The Well-Tempered Clavier" to advance equal temperament.

If you aren't just trying to stir the pot, how about posting some informed opinion to back up your view?

Until you do, here's something for you to consider:

We'd probably all agree Bach was a pretty smart dude, right? I'm guessing he probably was a pretty fair logical thinker, at least when he had to be. Well then, why would he try to prove ET treats all keys equally by composing pieces for each key that are radically different? Isn't that sort of like making sure your kids all learn the same things by sending them all to different schools? Wouldn't the obvious (and best) thing to do have been to just compose a single piece, and then transcribe it to each of the twelve keys?

It seems very likely that his point in composing different pieces for each key (besides to simply show that something usable could be played in each key) was to highlight the unique characteristics of each key. The "Well" genre of temperament made it possible to play in all keys, but still allowed each key to maintain its individual character -- unlike ET.

These temperaments clearly existed during Bach's time, and, you know what? Whereas it takes a considerable amount of skill to tune equal temperament on a keyboard instrument by ear -- particularly, I would think, if you lived in the 18th Century, before the technology existed to mathematically calculate ET to exact frequencies -- tuning well temperament is far easier. The reason for that is well temperament still uses a number of fifths that are tuned beatless, whereas ET does not.

People who actually have played a keyboard instrument tuned to one of the well temperaments say that certain pieces in Bach's WTC composition definitely seem to highlight the strengths -- while avoiding the weaknesses, of each well-tempered key.

For the information of those not familiar with the term "well temperament," it was a genre of temperament popular on keyboard instruments between the eras of meantone, which rendered certain keys unusable, and equal temperament, which rendered all keys the same by equally spacing the twelve semi-tones.

Eric, I apologize if you respond to this post and I do not return the favor. I'm leaving town early tomorrow morning for a few days. I also apologize for not posting links to back up my stated internet search findings, but others and I have already done that on here; such articles are many, and can easily be Googled up by anyone willing to type the word "temperament."

So far, no one has posted anything to back up the idea that Bach's Well-Tempered Clavier was intended to advance equal temperament. As far as I know, nothing exists to do so, except dogmatic, unsubstantiated assumptions from books and music programs decades out of date.

In the interest of objective scientific inquiry, I'm willing to change my opinion in the face of new data. But, until then ...

Jeff<font size="1" color="#8e236b"><p align="center">[This message was edited by Jeff A. Smith on 29 April 2005 at 09:35 PM.]</p></FONT>

No Jeff I don't mind.

I don't have any problem admitting I had no idea that the "Well Tempered Clavier" was not written for equal temperament.

I was as wrong as the sources I used to come up with this conclusion.

I can see that tuning fifths beatless wouldn't get him to ET like the more modern piano tuning methods that give them .6hz beats on the sharp side. It would be slightly "angrier" than the harpsicordian single scale Just Intonation I guess,

That explains a lot.

This is indeed becoming interesting.

In a way I'm tempted to throw in the towel and start trying to remove the beats in all my changes, and open strings, and then after widening my frets by a half inch, trying to get a feel of which notes in my single note runs will have to be moved up or down a third of a fret midpoint to be played depending on their usage, substitution, or linear location.

I don't know if I've got the 50 years it will probably take.

Then I will take a decade or so to find a way to explain why the "E" I give the guitar player from my C neck is 15 cents flat.


In the meantime, I will continue to tune to a good electronic tuner, same as the guitars I play with and in line with the electronic and well tuned keyboards I play with.

That will have to do for now..

Thanks, though you're off for a while.

I've got plenty to think about for answering Mr D's post later in the morning.

It's been a long day, and I just got done playing 5 hours with an electronic keyboard and well tuned telecaster. Funny how one's ears can be accustomed to such heretical tuning after a few thousand of these sessions...

I dont know how to break it to them that I'm going to be sharp or flat to them for a while once I start "tuning right"...

Maybe I'll just play louder..



EJL

PS.

So Bach had nothing to do with Equal Temperament.. I could be knocked over with a wilted flower about this point...

Bach did indeed work in ET,
but he ALSO worked and promoted tempered tuning,
because it was clear to him it was a needed addidion to the
stringed keyboard instruments he was playing.

Early in his career it was less of an issue,
but as harpsichords and church organs improved during his lifetime,
and his ability to write for them and finish the delvelopment of the fugue form,
he saw clearly that his musical progress would be hampered by purist ET, versus a more flexable tuning system.

Organ builders had gradually been quietly veering in this direction,
and it was then applied to the Harpsichord and later early pre Erhardt pianos.

On the large organs the tuning became more of an issue,
especially when playin ensemble,
and Bach had personally reached the limit of what he could effectively write for ET,
and yet saw the possible music available with a tempered tuning.

Prior to that on the clavichord and such it was less an issue,
because strings just didn't sustain long enough to be highly noticable.

He noticed when conducting ensembles, that the harpsichord would sometimes be out of tune with what sounded natural for the single note instruments played together.

So after tweaking around for a few years he wrote this group of pieces for a Well Tempered keyboard.

One that relfected his observations of how real world ensembles
naturally bent their tunings to match the best ear apparent sound.

<font size="1" color="#8e236b"><p align="center">[This message was edited by David L. Donald on 30 April 2005 at 04:04 AM.]</p></FONT>

DD, and DLD:

Word was that he "tweaked around" quite a bit..

I'm still reading, and I don't pretend to have done much baccalaureate or doctoral level reading on the history of music. I say that having done volumes and volumes more than the "average consumer" I do know that most of them are frightfully unmarked by any knowledge of why they like to listen to what they like to listen to. It certainly doesn't mean that they don't or shouldn't like it.

I still haven't seen how it is not possible for the human ear and auditory processing system to learn to expect twelve equal tones, even in the light of the underlying sonic waves' differences.

I might opine that there are several notable people, as well as many underschooled working dolts such as myself, that have learned to play fretless instruments in a manner such as to relegate all the differently cycles harmonics to twelve equal tones, sometimes taking twenty years or more of solid steady performance of such. Many have admitted it on this public forum.

Also there are those that have learned to acceptably place "wave form centered" passages over the logarithmic grid of other fixed pitch instruments. I look at them with envy for the most part, only occaisonally being consterned at their sometimes expressed disdain and belittlement of those that do otherwise.

It seems to be not unlike our relegation of 24 hours to a day that is slightly shorter, months that number twelve in a year of thirteen lunar cycles, and then leaving an extra day hanging out every four years where girls can ask boys out on dates. ( Sadie Hawkins Day)

It might be insensitivly expedient for us as a biological phenom to do this, but absent a concensus, as the aztecs seemed to have, or maybe some obscure tribe in the South Pacific who recently took to higher ground on the recent tsunami that was scheduled on their calendar, the twelve-centered system, with all it's "commas", and "remainders" seems to be what has kept us from slipping into species-wide chaos. Or it maybe just made a date available for marking when we did...

I'm still hopeful that the human ear and mind can some to accept the twelve tone note system in a slightly shorter time than it took our appendixes to grow...


I have my doubts.



EJL

PS to DD: As I have time, I'm reading and digesting your information, and none of it will go to waste.

I did spend a good deal of time checking my post for false premises, and overassuming postulations. Hopefully well spent.

<font size="1" color="#8e236b"><p align="center">[This message was edited by Eric West on 30 April 2005 at 01:19 PM.]</p></FONT>

Tweek the tuners all you like guys, you're still gonna have to PLAY it in tune (which might just mean OUT of tune, depending)....

Eric's quote from BE about hearing flat thirds on steel tracks brings us back to Bob C's original question in this thread. Eric, how do you explain Jim Cohen's experience, where the consensus in the studio was that when playing with a piano his steel sounded better tuned JI rather than ET? How do you explain Bruce Bouton's story about almost being fired from a studio gig for tuning ET. How do you explain Jerry Byrd tuning JI his whole career. I think things are not so simple that ET always sounds better to everyone in the studio in the presence of other ET instruments.

I don't doubt for a minute that BE can hear the difference between JI and ET thirds on recorded tracks. Nor would I be surprised that on occassions some steelers lay down tracks that sound flat. I would be surprised if a top studio steeler who was tuned JI and layed a track while listening to the final mix sounded off. Of course you can't always lay the steel track down last, because you don't always have studio people who understand this problem. The big egos like vocalists and lead guitarists tend to want to lay their tracks last.

In my limited studio experience I have noticed that if two instruments are slightly off from each other (because of JI/ET or any other reason), the one that is loudest in the mix sounds correct, and the background instrument sounds off. So if your track will be relegated to the background, and the foreground instruments are ET, then it may be safer to tune closer to ET. If you are doing a solo album on steel, then you will mostly be in the foreground in the mix, and so can stick closer to JI.

I don't think Eric's worries over scales is as big a problem as one might thing from the theoretical conflict between JI an ET. If you tune your open strings to a JI E chord, the A and B pedal stops to an A chord that is JI to the unpedaled E strings, and strings 1 and 2 to a B chord with the open 5th string as the root, then you will automatically play a correct JI scale using any of those strings and pedals and holding your bar at any single given fret. This happens because all of those scale notes come from one of the JI chords you have tuned. You are JI whether you play the chords or the scale. There are no conflicts. The few chromatic notes you can get at a single fret can be tuned by their stops to be correct JI, for example the minor 7th you get on string 2 with the D lever.

Similar things happen with the scale you get at the V fret with the AB pedals down, and the minor scale you get with the A pedal down, and the minor scale you get with the E lower lever. These chords are all tuned to the same JI scale, and so their notes will play that JI scale correctly. Things don't work out quite so well for the BC pedal postion or the A pedal/F lever position, but they are no worse than the dissonance you get tuning everything ET, and compensators can correct these problems. So as I said before, the basic chords and scales work out amazingly well; but if you add enough pedals and levers and try to use different strings as roots, you will eventually run into problems. So it all depends if you want to compromise on changes you don't use often and leave your commonly used stuff sweet JI, or want to compromise on everything and tune ET.

Of course if you play a single note scale going up the neck, you will play ET if you are exactly over the frets. If it is too fast to adjust by ear, then nobody will notice whether it is ET or JI. If it is slow, your ear will adjust to the rest of the band, which may come out JI or ET, depending on the situation.

As for giving the guitar player an E, I give him Es and As from the E9 neck, and tell him to do his own tuning from there - or just hand him my meter.

None of this is a conclusive argument to switch from tuning ET to tuning JI. But these things help explain why tuning JI has worked out okay for so many of us for so many years. A lot of the potential problems one might imagine simply don't occur when you start looking at what actually happens.

David, not to detract from your general point, but I had to change to ET in the studio with piano for one particular song. The other songs I seemed to do fine with JI. I should have analyzed why, on that particular song, it might be different, but I didn't. Perhaps I was using different chord positions where the offending note was more often the 3rd of the chord, etc. I wasn't as aware then as I am now of the difficulties and possibilities...

<SMALL>Also there are those that have learned to acceptably place "wave form centered" passages over the logarithmic grid of other fixed pitch instruments. I look at them with envy.. - A Tired old Steel Player-</SMALL>

.

I don't doubt in the least players being able to do this, and not just "the best" or "the most accomplished". Our mainframe cranial computers can do things that they themselves can't explain. Many players of just a few years seem to have very keen innate abilities approaching extra-sensory.

Sometimes there are players that have other priorities than "fame", whose points are no less valid.

Sometimes..

Mr Cohen is very knowledgeable and from what I've heard has a very good tone center. I wasn't there. I was reading your statement "in the studio" to imply that it was that way in "The Studio". That's all. It was just over reacting to my feeling that you were again painting with your "broad brush™".

I don't know about Mr Bouten's experience of almost being fired from RS. I understand it went farther than that over a mere giving of a news interview in England. Lots of these artists have quirks and things I'm happier without knowing. Grandpa Jones fired a guy for trying to keep measures to 4 beats in a 4/4 song. (Stupid him...)

Your segment on JI Tunings mechanics obviously doesn't apply to those that tune "ET" (exceptinh adjustments for "cabinet drop"). Most guitars being different anyhow, I wouldn't want to start a project of doing all my 8/6 changes with all the new double stops/ additions on my Marrs.

Incidentally I can now let that in the last few year of my PIII's hard life my cabinet drop was getting bad and my fingers were grooved badly. Still "ET worked best for me.

David.

I TOTALLY agree with your conclusion for once.

I might add that none of my points, soliloquys or rubbish ( no comments from the peanut gallery ) is meant to present an argument for switching to ET, from those that have other tuning systems.

The possible exception being those just starting out and being floored by all the complexities to begin with. Making it much harder might discourage otherwise worshipful students.

I find you, as well as the other DD ( DLD) Mr Cohen and others, to be very civil, understanding, and willing to go point by point on things where there's a legitimate, or even an irreverently light hearted jibe.

I think that through discourse of a few thoughtful and courteous people this "Tremendous Tunin' Question" has been brought to a very good understanding, rather than spraying out into tons of confusion.

The last sentence in your post applies IMHO to both.

Thanks again. as always I have been given much to study.

Even with a 40-50 hour day job, and playing weekends, I find that my time is really slammed a lot of the time. (I did more when I was in my 40s and earlier..)

I don't know how those that have demanding schedules do it.

Here's to "looking at what actually happens".

Cheers my friend.



EJL<font size="1" color="#8e236b"><p align="center">[This message was edited by Eric West on 30 April 2005 at 04:35 PM.]</p></FONT>

Interesting, Jim. I wish we had your trials recorded. You just have to go with what works best. It would be nice if we could figure out how to tell ahead of time whether ET or JI will work best.

Eric, it's your jabs that have partly inspired me to look into all this to the extent I have. As a piano and sax player and fan of classical music, I was vaguely aware of the JI/ET dilemma, but not the real details of it. As a 6-string guitarist I had learned the difference between straight up ET and "tweaked" JI. But pedal steel really brings a whole lot more complexity to the problem. With the bar we can move JI chords around all over the place in a way guitar cannot do except with a few bar chords. So that partly solves the problem for us. But when we start adding lots of pedals and knee levers and using different strings for roots, we get right back into the problem.

I have some spreadsheet charts that show how the main chords work out for JI tuned E9 and C6. If anyone is interested in these, I'll try to find time to post them.

Anyhow. Thanks again. This has been indeed a memorable thread.



EJL<font size="1" color="#8e236b"><p align="center">[This message was edited by Eric West on 30 April 2005 at 04:40 PM.]</p></FONT>

Well tempered might not have had anything to do with tunings. My music teacher in college thought that it was meant to be an exercise in playing in all the different keys, nothing more.
If you're playing with an equal tempered instrument,you will have to play in equal temperament,regardless of how you tune. If your playing with JI instruments,you will play in JI, or you won't sound in tune.
I also hear many things by great players that sound sour to my ear,most of the JI stuff I've heard off the internet sounds terrible to me.
Another great and friendly discussion. JP

Now this is what im talkin bout,great thread!!!

Slickster

David,

Congratulations. Your posts about the tuning differences between JI and ET tempermant are right on the mark. Hopefully this will clarify a choice of direction for some confused players.

Eric,

I believe you are overlooking Buddy's main statement on this subject. Buddy stated that the reason he began tuning to ET was for his desire to be able to use ALL of the possible string groupings and NOT have to avoid specific groupings on his E9th copedant like he did when he tuned to JI.

Buddy DID NOT abandon the JI direction because his playing was sounding out with the band. To hear his JI tuning listen to the Black album and all of those classic Price cuts. To hear his ET tuning listen to his Christmas CD. Buddy's entire body of work proves that players can sound in tune with the band whether tuning to JI or ET. No matter which method Buddy uses, his single note and chord playing always sounds great and blends perfectly with the other instruments. Buddy has developed his ears to always hear the center pitch of the bands chord.

Jeff Beck did a session a few years back and the studio story goes something like this. When Jeff arrived he was in a hurry so he picked up his guitar, turned his rig on and said roll the tape without tweaking any of his strings to any tuner. After a few takes Jeff said I think that's got it. Not only was the part brilliant but so was his pitch with the band. Jeff is known for using a whammy bar like no other and stretching strings which is how he managed to get every note he played to pitch. His ears, like Buddy's, are so refined to hearing the center pitch of the band that no matter how the instrument is tuned they can play correctly in tune.

Donny,

Playing in tune in the past or present has more to do with how well the player hears the center pitch of the bands chord and not to which direction they tune their instruments. Yesterday we recut "I'm Not Lisa". We were amazed that the original overall record sounds basically in tune yet after listening closely the keyboards were way out of tune and the guitars were somewhere close. This made the spread of the center pitch of the bands chord to be wider than it was on our version. Both our keyboards and guitars were so in tune it almost sounded as if they were one instrument. That leaves the steel and the other surface instruments very little ice to skate on.

Because of the perfect options folks seem to desire for making records these days. The steel and fiddles are more likely to be noticed as being a little out on more occasions than you might have noticed if the rhythm sections tuned as loosely as they used to back when..

When we listen to older records we are hearing a collective group producers and musicians that were content with the sound of instruments closely in tune, NOT perfectly in tune as is the direction these days.

Paul

Paul.

Thanks.

That's what I got out of it. I read studiously all of Mr E's comments on the threads he participated in here.

For me, playing the kinds of jobs I play with the instruments I play with, using a non JI tuning puts me as close as I need to be. I've played it that way for so many years that my ears aren't thrown off by a few extra beats on chords that are blending with other intonations on the instruments. Not at stage volumes anyhow. Recording, I do less of, and find it is as has been stated, a blend. Sometimes it works better than others. Mostly centered around tuners, now that strangely tuned stringed pianos aren't used that much in the limited recording that I do which happened when I recorded with things like Mini Grands, and Helpenstills.

Besides, I figure if somebody can tune 9-15 cents flat from other instruments and still sound in tune, then I'm home free too..



EJL