The Steel Guitar Forum

As a guitar player of 50 years and a lap steeler of two months I am going thru all of this as well. I am taking Skype lessons from John Ely and fought him a bit in the beginning on this. I gig a lot and want to add steel to my doubles ASAP so I found myself looking for short cuts. Since I could tune to an E6 I could immediately get to the major and minor chords by transferring the typical major barred guitar chord to the same fret location on my steel. You know... G6 on the third fret and its relative minor Emin7 on the same fret. John (as well as a lot of you) highly recommened a C6 tuning since I do a lot of swing and jazz. For the past two weeks I have been using a C6 and it is starting to make sense. I like the third on top and have begun the mental transition. On thing I have found out is this is not a "spanish" guitar and I need to quit thinking of it it that respect. You might as well have been playing trumpet all your life and then took up fiddle. They are completely different instruments. Music theory does, though, still apply. You can certainly transfer that knowledge which will help a lot. A C major scale is still a C major scale.

Yesterday I was thinking of some music while reading thru Denny Turner's great course http://dennysguitars.homestead.com/less ... x1.htmland not looking at or holding either intrument (steel or guitar) and I saw the neck of my steel clearly in my mind's eye. Big breakthrough for me. It's kind of like dreaming for the first time in a foreign language. That's when you start to get it.

This instrument is stunning! I can't get enough of it.

Play on!

Mike Neer wrote:My main disagreement is over B6 being easier

I was going to do a blow by blow rebuttal, but it was taking too much time Instead I'll just point out what draws me to B6 as opposed to C6. NOTE: this is in relation to playing swing/gypsy jazz, NOT country or Hawaiian! If I were doing rock-n-roll I'd probably prefer an E7 tuning, with a nice fat power chord on the bottom.

In the 6th tunings we're speaking of the root of the major chord is on the 2nd string (B in B6) whereas the root of the minor chord is on the 1st string (E in C6).

I think in terms of major chords, not minor chords, so I need to know the root of the major chord, NOT the minor chord. Therefore having an automatic knowledge of the B string means that I can find all the major chords immediately. This need trumps all other issues Therefore I find B6 the easier tuning.

If, OTOH, you think in terms of minor chords, not major, then it makes more sense to have the root note of the minor chord on the E string, i.e. C6 makes more sense.

I've always based my soloing on the B string.

While I also advocate knowing all the notes on the instrument, and sight-reading, I do find that the traditional route of learning scales will not prepare you to improvise convincingly. Melodies are based on chords with the additions of suspensions and color notes. Therefore, IMO, a better way to learn to improvise is to work "outwards" from the chords. Learn the number of the note in relation to the chord and you take a giant step towards improvisational freedom, i.e. in root position, the 3rd string is the 6th, therefore if I need to play a b7 I can bring that note up a 1/2 step. Or, the 5th string is the 3th, therefore if I need a minor third, I slant down a 1/2 step, etc. etc. etc. This means you learn functionality first, and leave note name memorization (i.e. this an a C, this is and Ab, etc.) till later, working initially off the "key" note of the root. Part of the idea here is to jettison a lot (though not all!) of your standard guitar knowledge (especially reliance on the blues scale!!!) and start with a fresh slate.

Anyway, I didn't mean for this to be any more than a discussion, so I hope you can just recognize it as that.

Yup, it's all good, just a friendly discussion and looking for other POV's

Everyone has a different capacity for learning things and some have a different method. I think it is best when the traditional route is exhausted before venturing into something a bit more unconventional.

Gotta admit, I've never been one much for tradition In the conservative/liberal/radical triad I've always leaned towards the radical end of the scale. I like to look at an issue and try to trace it back to root cause, then move forward from that position.

The root of the minor chord is on the A string, the 5th in on the E string.

Twayn, if you're really into Gypsy Jazz, I don't see how you could not look at it in terms of a minor tonality. To think of a major chord there is definitely counter to the way it is approached by players in that style. I'm definitely no stranger to it and I've been playing it (in my own limited way) for a number of years.

Mike Neer wrote:The root of the minor chord is on the A string, the 5th in on the E string.

Oops! Sorry! I don't really think of minor chords that way and I went into guitar mode where the high E is the root of the minor chord (E minor for the open strings.) My bad!

Twayn, if you're really into Gypsy Jazz, I don't see how you could not look at it in terms of a minor tonality. To think of a major chord there is definitely counter to the way it is approached by players in that style. I'm definitely no stranger to it and I've been playing it (in my own limited way) for a number of years.

Yeah, it's a constant struggle for me. I definitely think more like an American swing player than a European gypsy player! i.e. more Charlie Christian, less Django. Gypsy jazz is a real challenge for me. The minor tonality is not natural to my way of thinking, so I'm always more comfortable on the major tunes than the minors. In fact, at the Gypsy Jazz jams I'll put my dobro away and pick up my guitar when a minor tune is called (like Minor Swing or Swing Gitane, etc.) I haven't worked on a way to transverse harmonic minor on the 6th tuning yet. I know there's a way, I just haven't put any effort into it yet

Gotta run, I have to get to a guitar lesson! Then Gypsy jam, then gig. Yeesh, what a busy day!

Mike Neer wrote:Bruce, the music theory is just an explanation for what sounds right! Always trust your ears first. I think in order to understand music theory, you should try to focus on learning one key (say the key of C). From there you can see all of the relationships to the C scale and once you are comfortable understanding the role each chord and scale tone plays, you can then begin to apply the same info to other keys. It's all the same info, just with different pitches and names.

Makes sense. Thanks for the good advice and I'll give you a progress report. Like the blog as well.
B

I prefer to think of the "notes" as "numbers".
(i.e. 1,3,5,6,1,3, et al)
That way no matter what tuning, or key you're in, the relationship of chords and intervals remains the same, as long as you're aware of the Key Sig., and depart from it as required. (or not)
Rick

As a recovering music school student (degree from Indiana), I have tried to forget about as much of that stuff as I can since graduation, and my playing of music has improved greatly.

I agree with Rick. I tend to think in numbers, not note names. I also try to think intervalically. Thinking of the relationship of the strings let's me not worry about keys so much (other than a guide), and used the relationships of the intervals to use when constructing my solos. Plus, I'm just too dumb to remember all of that stuff.



As regarding tunings, I learned C6 first, and the transition wasn't difficult at all from guitar, at least for me. Having some keyboard experience helped a great deal in this respect. About 97% of my time now is spent in either open D (DADF#AD), or D6 (DADF#BD). I use a lot of slants between strings 1/3 and 2/4, and I can cover about all I need to in improvisational situations with these. I can easily retune to low-bass open G with this, too. I did try the raised middle D string to E for a G6, but don't care for it (for my playing style, anyway - works for some people).

Whatever works for folks to make real music is all good in my book.

YMMV...

Rick Winfield wrote:I prefer to think of the "notes" as "numbers".
(i.e. 1,3,5,6,1,3, et al)
That way no matter what tuning, or key you're in, the relationship of chords and intervals remains the same, as long as you're aware of the Key Sig., and depart from it as required. (or not)
Rick

This is pretty much my take as well. Of course, when you need to find that key position, knowing the note name of the 2nd string is pretty important!

In swing, one of the main things I've been trying to do is stop thinking in keys and instead think in much smaller chord patterns, ii-V, IV-iv6, I6-biidim7-ii7-V7, etc. Knowing the key is still important, but it's not like playing blues or rock or country where the chords are in key and you rarely change chords quickly. Instead I try to think major 6th patterns, dominant patterns, diminished patterns, minor 7th patterns and the dreaded harmonic minor pattern It's tough!

Twayn Williams wrote:

Rick Winfield wrote:I prefer to think of the "notes" as "numbers".
(i.e. 1,3,5,6,1,3, et al)
That way no matter what tuning, or key you're in, the relationship of chords and intervals remains the same, as long as you're aware of the Key Sig., and depart from it as required. (or not)
Rick

This is pretty much my take as well. Of course, when you need to find that key position, knowing the note name of the 2nd string is pretty important!

Yeah, I'll third that approach, in which case it really doesn't matter what open string bass note the tonic is. Strangely, this approach to the theory of harmony is the one generally favored in both Vienna and Nashville if not NYC.

Also, the whole B6/C6 which is more like a guitar debate is kinda irrelevant to me because clearly, E6 is closer than both, and has it's own distinctive tone. It's kinda apples and oranges given that the fretted guitar has 4 barred major chord shapes which require a wholly different application of the fingers than grabbing a hold of that pesky bar. Translating back into the terms of another instrument isn't really any way to become fluent on a new one after a little while, you need to learn the new one organically, if that makes any sense.

I've got a lot to unlearn!

I used to think in numbers sometimes, too, but if I'm navigating through complex tunes with a lot of non-diatonic harmony and a lot of modulations, that system goes out the window and I'll tell you why: finding common tones between non-diatonic chords. Doing it with numbers is nearly impossible in my experience. But honestly, today and every day I get closer to just throwing all of it out the window and playing in a more chromatic fashion, just by playing select chord tones on certain beats and playing freely and chromatically. I do this mostly on the guitar and haven't quite reached the point where I'm comfortable on the steel, but I will.

Yeah, Mike you did an amazing post about that several months ago. It was this long thread that I think was right before you kicked off your blog. You had a diagram showing the common tones of chords. It was kind of the circle of 5th on steroids. The kind of thing I need to read and incubate before I revisit it--I gotta find that again--THAT really seemed like the next conceptual level to aspire to....

Plus I know the vertical chordal approach to conceptualizing music is probably inferior to the horizontal scalar one, though that's a hard habit to break too.

Mike Neer wrote:I used to think in numbers sometimes, too, but if I'm navigating through complex tunes with a lot of non-diatonic harmony and a lot of modulations, that system goes out the window and I'll tell you why: finding common tones between non-diatonic chords. Doing it with numbers is nearly impossible in my experience. But honestly, today and every day I get closer to just throwing all of it out the window and playing in a more chromatic fashion, just by playing select chord tones on certain beats and playing freely and chromatically. I do this mostly on the guitar and haven't quite reached the point where I'm comfortable on the steel, but I will.

Ah, the never ending quest

By-by, got a good example of a tune that uses too many non-diatonic chords? I wanna give it run!

When it comes to using numbers, while I'm trying to think more in patterns like ii7-V7-I6, when I'm reading a tune on the fly (chords only NOT melody!!!) if the tune is going too fast I'll often drop looking for multi-chord patterns and just play the chords as they lie, ex: C6-Ab7-G7 instead of I6-bV7-V7. And if it's going really fast I just look for the root and play that. Or I just wait for the next chord

Regardless I'm always looking for the note number of the chord rather than the name, i.e. 1-3-5-6 for a major 6th, 1-b3-5-b7 for a minor 7th, etc.

Have You Met Miss Jones? Have fun.

Mike Neer wrote:Have You Met Miss Jones? Have fun.

Thanks! I give 'er a run when I get home from rehearsal tonight

I had a little time after work and before rehearsal today so I took a quick swing at it. Here's my initial stab at "Have You Met Miss Jones?" and a small analysis.

WARNING!!! Dull theory talk ahead!!! Proceed at your own risk!!!

Have You Met Miss Jones?
by Rodgers & Hart

A section:

[: FM7 | F#o7 | G-7 | C7 |

| A-7 | D-7 |

1st
| G-7 | C7 :]

2nd
| C-7 F7 |


B section:

| BbM7 | Ab-7 Db7 | GbM7 | E-7 A7 |

| DM7 | Ab-7 Db7 | GbM7 | G-7 C7 |


C section:

| FM7 | F#o7 | G-7 | C7 Bb7 |

| A-7 D7 | G-7 C7 | FM7 | G-7 C7 |


A section:

The A section is key of F:

I #Io7 ii7 V7 iii7 vi7 ii7 V7

I also have a chart that uses a VI7 chord instead of the #Io7 chord, but the main gist is that it's a standard I-VI7-ii-V7 pattern. The Am7 chord I'm pretty much treating as a C6, so avoiding the b7 (Bb) but otherwise treating it like a C chord.

The B section is a bit trickier and is composed of ii-V7-I patterns, starting with the 2nd ending of the A section. Keys are Bb, Gb, D, Gb, and back to F.

Gm7-C7-BbM7 = Bb
Abm7-Db7-GbM7 = Gb
Em7-A7-DM7 = D
Abm7-Db7-GbM7 = Gb
Gm7-C7-FM7 = F

Since it goes by pretty quickly I'm leaning heavily on the root position or the IV/V position for each key change.

The C section is a variation on the A section. The Bb7 is a bit of a curveball but mainly functions as a passing descending chord to get from the V7 chord (C7) to the iii7 (A-7) -- which in this case is really just part of a common extended turnaround, a whole step ii-V7 pattern above the regular ii-V pattern that leads to the I chord (F).

All the way around, a nice fun tune to play on with a challenging B section! I played it about 180bmp on iRealbook.

FULL DISCLOSURE: if I had just seen this tune at a jam for the first time, those G flats in the B section undoubtedly would've tossed me right off the rails

Yeah a good example of when I am playing jazz standards, I am usually playing my Fender bass! Though I have run this on piano backing my son on sax. And on that bridge (B section) I definitely marked up my fakebook with the tonic of all those ii V I's as a bit of a roadmap. Crude, but helpful. Worth noting that IMHO it takes a great melody to pull the listener through those changes on the B section, otherwise it would be a discordant mess.

Note that the B section has the essentially same changes as Giant Steps, 1/2 step lower.

/BM7 D7 /GM7 Bb7 /EbM7 /A-7 D7/GM7 Bb7 /EbM7 F#7 /BM7 /
/F-7 Bb7 /EbM7 /A-7 D7 /GM7 /C#-7 F#7 /BM7 /F-7 Bb7 /EbM7 /C#-7 F#7 /

Matt Berg wrote:Yeah a good example of when I am playing jazz standards, I am usually playing my Fender bass! Though I have run this on piano backing my son on sax. And on that bridge (B section) I definitely marked up my fakebook with the tonic of all those ii V I's as a bit of a roadmap. Crude, but helpful. Worth noting that IMHO it takes a great melody to pull the listener through those changes on the B section, otherwise it would be a discordant mess.

Play the changes = no mess! Base your solos on the chords as they go by and it's gonna work. Might not be a great melody, but it won't be a mess. This is what my swing teacher has been drilling into my head.

When I'm quick reading a tune and I see a minor 7th followed by a dominant 7th, I'll move to the minor chord position and from there I have a set of patterns I can use to play the ii7-V7 and if a major chord follows the dominant chord, it's almost always going to be the I chord so I also can extend the ii7-V7 pattern to a ii7-V7-I based on the same physical position on the fretboard. I use this technique on both guitar and steel.

Mike Neer wrote:Note that the B section has the essentially same changes as Giant Steps, 1/2 step lower.

/BM7 D7 /GM7 Bb7 /EbM7 /A-7 D7/GM7 Bb7 /EbM7 F#7 /BM7 /
/F-7 Bb7 /EbM7 /A-7 D7 /GM7 /C#-7 F#7 /BM7 /F-7 Bb7 /EbM7 /C#-7 F#7 /

I love Giant Steps but I've always been afraid of it too I haven't tried it since I began to seriously study swing so I might give it another go as well. Of course it's usually played at a million miles an hour so it's probably still out of my reach...

Twayn Williams wrote:

Matt Berg wrote: I definitely marked up my fakebook with the tonic of all those ii V I's as a bit of a roadmap. Crude, but helpful.

Play the changes = no mess! Base your solos on the chords as they go by and it's gonna work. Might not be a great melody, but it won't be a mess. This is what my swing teacher has been drilling into my head.

When I'm quick reading a tune and I see a minor 7th followed by a dominant 7th, I'll move to the minor chord position and from there I have a set of patterns I can use to play the ii7-V7 and if a major chord follows the dominant chord, it's almost always going to be the I chord so I also can extend the ii7-V7 pattern to a ii7-V7-I based on the same physical position on the fretboard. I use this technique on both guitar and steel.

Agreed, and since I am a real simpleton, I group the ii7 V7 I's when I can because they're all based on the major scale of the I. So that way I don't need to process the each chord, just the tonic.