The Steel Guitar Forum

I don´t care for that change. In the kind of country music I like to listen to it´s practically non-existent. What I really like and use a lot instead is the half-step raise from F# to G.

Regards, Joe H.

"I have played my own personal (unique) setup... the exact same pedal and tuning setup...for over 25 years!"

Donny,
Is your tuning posted anywhere?
I'd like to check it out.
Just curious,
Thx,
Pete B.

Oh gee whiz,, I have had this for several months now and didnt realize it. Thanks for the thread I played around with the raise and I love it. This is what the forum is for. I will definatly use this raise. It has such a neat distinct sound.

What is the most common use for the 1/2 tone raise to G?
BL

The F#'s to G# give a major 7th with the A and B pedals. That is the way I saw Paul Franklin demonstrate in in Stocton a lot of years ago. I don't know if he raised the first string then...maybe.

Hey Bill, this change, as you are undoubtedly aware, has been used on lots of records lately. Most guys pull sting 2 up to E at the same time. On modern guitars you can do almost anything you want. My opinion is that it is important to have these changes if you like it or if you are covering the songs that they are used on. Then there's the 5,6,10 drop..Some really nice stuff on both of these changes.

Brian L.,

The F# to G raise is a must. To do without the 1st, and 7th raises, would be likened to hiring a carpenter who has no saws or rulers. I refer to 7th string, which is the octave below the 1st, to call attention to the imperative values which can be brought about, by the constant utilization of the 7th string raise. The absence of specificity in your question, necessitates bringing the 7th string into focus, to exemplify how important the change is when combined with the A & B pedals. One example to stress is, the ease of going from a minor 7th to major 7th. Without that change, a steel guitarist performing on the E 9th "neck", is literally without the great advantage of accessible musical expression. For those who have excluded the change, perhaps further inquiry, would result in consequently making it a mainstay on their instruments.

Bill H.
<FONT SIZE=1 COLOR="#8e236b"><p align=CENTER>[This message was edited by Bill Hankey on 17 August 2002 at 10:38 AM.]</p></FONT>

I had the whole step raise briefly, never really gave it much chance, and went back to the half-step. I don't like half-stops at all. But one permutation of some of the above workarounds is having the half step raise and using a finger-pull in combination with the lever to get the whole step. It requires practice to play it in tune when using it in unison with the third string.

What Bill said..I think...
tp

Jon L.

The first thing to take into account, if one were to commence pulling on the 1st string, to attain the G to G# change, is, to opt for the correct string gauge. There is simply no question, that by placing an improper string, (even a mere .001), under or over, would disrupt the event, and have a tendency to dissuade the player from further using this great technique. Consider the delicate nature of the 3rd string, (G#), and proceed from there. An .011.5 may very well be the most practical selection. Delineations, or permutations, of the F# to G# change, matters not. Diversified
techniques utilizing the 1/2 tone, or full tone 1st string raise, offers an endless network of musical expressions.

Bill H. <FONT SIZE=1 COLOR="#8e236b"><p align=CENTER>[This message was edited by Bill Hankey on 18 August 2002 at 04:32 AM.]</p></FONT><FONT SIZE=1 COLOR="#8e236b"><p align=CENTER>[This message was edited by Bill Hankey on 19 August 2002 at 07:49 AM.]</p></FONT>

All this having been said, I was reminded of something I had on my first Fender 1000. At first it was an aggravation but it changed to an asset when I figured out what I could do with it. It only worked on my first 1000, a blond version and I couldn't make it work on the second, a sunburst version.

Pulling the high G# and the middle G# to A's should have been both going up togeather. It didn't do that. The first one, a .009 would raise up and then the lower one, a .025 would begin to pull up. That was what got my dander up. There was no way around it because of the pulley between the two pulls.

Finally, I got to think of it as a 1/2B pull as I would go down partially on the pedal to allow the high G# to go to an A but the lower one remained at a G# for a major 7th chord sounding.

My next guitar was a T-10 Marlen by Leonard Stadler and the one after that was the sunburst 1000 and neither of these guitars could do that change so it has faded in obsucrity. I was tempted on my last Carter D-12 to ask if Bud could make that work but I got too old somewhere in there and never even asked.

Regards, Paul

Paul G.

Could you tell me what your tuning was, on the problematic neck. The Fender 1000's have 2 necks, and the Fender 400's have one neck. I'm sure that you are aware of their construction. When the .009 pulled up to pitch, the lower octave should have done the same. Of course the smaller gauged string would pull up much easier than the .025 gauged str. There is no reason on earth, to be defeated by the Fender pulley system. Its design was simplistic, and if all the adj. screws, cables, and pedal rods, were in good condition, you could exceed a full tone raise. You might have had much better results by choosing to replace the .025, with a plain .022. My thoughts are trained upon the possibility, that combined with excessive cable slack, or other parts out of adj., the larger gauged string would be adding to the problem, which by nature, resisted the desired high pitch.

Bill H.



<FONT SIZE=1 COLOR="#8e236b"><p align=CENTER>[This message was edited by Bill Hankey on 19 August 2002 at 07:43 AM.]</p></FONT>

Bill: It was a new 1000 and it was on the front neck. My inside neck was a C6th set with the pedals the way I had learned them from Bob White. I was in Europe and very far away from the steel guitar scene. When the chance came to write for Fender/Fretts I was very skeptical about what I could add from a vantage point so distant.

Now when I go back to that situation, I think there may have been some slack in the cables because I had a habit of allowing my foot to rest on the pedals and a tight cable would immediately translate that to a pitch change. So I was slightly slack, so to speak.

It seems to me now, in retrospect, that with the exception of the first string (now the 3rd string.) all the E tuning strings were very heavy. The days of complete guaged sets of strings were yet to come. At a suggestion by Bob, I had a thin tenor guitar string tuned to a G in front of my C tuning so it was similar to A6th that was so popular then and in fact was on the 1000 to start with.

Perhaps it was a tightness in the changer assembly for the 4th string that may have also contributed to the effect, I really don't know.....

Regards, Paul

Jerry O.

In deference to your thoughts, to the statements made in your last reply, which are very interesting, and they help to remove skepticism for those who haven't tried the 1st string full step raise, I wish to thank you. The 2nd str. 1/2 tone raise is a good way to go, to enliven scale patterns, and further involve the second string. If the inside out 9th tuning ever proves to be a stumbling block, the 2nd. str. raise compensates for the awkward, at times; setup.

Bill H.

I raise string 1 and 2 on my RKR and like it a lot. What it boils down to is what ever cranks your motor,is the way to go.

Buck G.,

Thanks for the input on the 1st and 2nd raises. I'm surmising that you have found the changes to be a welcome addition to the "standard" E9th chromatic setup. Can you recall any specific problems in getting oriented to the changes? In other words, were you able to adapt to the 1st and 2nd str. raises in a relatively short period of time? Learning to work the two changes into a given musical arrangement, requires that the player has become constantly aware of note pattern accessibilities. The (RKR) is a favorite location for the 2nd str. lowers. Out of kindness, could you reveal where the knee lever on your steel guitar, is located, that actuates the 2nd str. lowers?

Bill H.

.....Ernest Bovine.."I'd go for it when the red light is on and I'm playing all feel and no brains".......

I do that a lot!
www.genejones.com

Yeah, I've tried to play less analytically, and more from the heart, especially since a musician I liked once told me "Now you are finally playing music" but it's hard to avoid mistakes and stupidity if I don't think about it.

Paul my friend.....I changed those settings on that 1000 so many times that I really don't remember what I used....but I had a lot of those single raise strings for Mooney's stuff...it's a shame that I didn't use them better.... www.genejones.com

Gene: The 1000 was just the instrument for guys like us. Every time we got an idea, flip it over and go for it. I really appreciated that about the Fender.

What I found most disconcerting was when they started adding chromatic changes like Speedy West and Noel Boggs were said to have used in the 8th string positions or in the back of the tuning instead of up front as they now are. When they put two of them back there, I really felt limited in the E9th layout and that was when I began talking to Leonard Stadler about a ten string guitar.

Fortunately for me, he was stateside while I was overseas and he had already heard about putting the chromatics in the front. At first I said: Oh no !! I just get used to them being in the back and now they go up front !! But I rolled with it and I found out the advantages of having them up there pretty fast.

At first I sorely missed the 1000 and even went so far as to get another one because I missed the versatility you mentioned, so much. I never had any problem getting the tone or voicing I wanted for my playing. I could set my twin reverb or earlier, the Pro 15" and get what I was looking for. I recognized the diffenence between Bobby Garrett's Sho-Bud and BE's 1000 but to me, they were both quality sounds and guitars.

To this day, I regret the change of paths that Fender took and their complete lack of interest in anything related to steel guitar in todays market. That wasn't where they came from and I never cared much for folks who would turn on their own families. Just a basic character flaw as I see it !!

Regards, Paul

Thanx Bill, I must confess that I have been negligent in practicing of late, but I'm beginning to see that there is way more to the 1st string raise than just another unison note as most of you guys probably already know. I got to play at our last club meeting and came across a nice thing going from the I to the IV while working out Almost Persuaded as an instrumental raising 1 and 2 then lowering 2 a whole tone from raised then back to the 1,2 raise and back 2 frets and so on [string 3 is in there too]....kinda hard to explain here, but scale licks as you state. I can see the potential for MANY new sounds and new approaches.

<FONT SIZE=1 COLOR="#8e236b"><p align=CENTER>[This message was edited by Jerry Overstreet on 19 August 2002 at 07:45 PM.]</p></FONT>

A friend who plays a single 12 strings steel guitar, once said to me, "The Fender 1000 is the most 'stable' instrument in the world". I dared not challenge that statement, for many reasons. I owned a Fender 1000 at the time, and had gone over its components, which, attributed largely, to the reliability of the instrument. He went on to affirm declaredly, that, "Ash, was the chosen wood in its construction". For my part, I'm partial to cables, and pulleys, and with good reason. Industry would gradually grind to a halt, without their use. I really should emphasize, that, Fender went all-out from my standpoint, to produce an instrument of such great value. The Fender 1000 reminds me of the dollar for dollar, great values of Ford's Model (A's). To criticize either of their values, would be farcical, or laughable. In keeping with the thread, the Fender 9th tuning "neck" would be perfect for practising a combination of raises, and lowers, due to the simplistic loops, at the changer end of the instrument.

My Fender 1000 was equipped with a full set of knee levers, and Buzz Evans' early 8 string 9th tuning. I really was amazed to learn that installing knee levers was an uncommon practice on the Fender 1000. I've also adapted the CBA pedal arrangement, and use the five string grab technique for fuller melody lines.

Bill H. <FONT SIZE=1 COLOR="#8e236b"><p align=CENTER>[This message was edited by Bill Hankey on 20 August 2002 at 05:23 PM.]</p></FONT>

After chatting with a well known steel guitarist last evening, I was very surprised to learn that the full tone raise of the 1st string is still excuded from a large number of working instruments. The popular artist from Western Ma. said to me after I mentioned to him my thoughts, " I think I'll just keep what I have." The conversation had advanced to other changes, before his comment was made. So much has been said about the advantages of 3,5,6, and 10 full tone lowers. Maybe they will be a welcome addition. Of course the 2nd string will raise a half tone, and the 9th lowered a 1/2 tone.

Bill H.

<SMALL>What is the most common use for the 1/2 tone raise to G?</SMALL>

Unless I missed something, I'm not sure that Bill H. or anyone else really answered this. Unless I'm mistaken, the most common use for the 1/2 step raise would have to be using it to get the b7th note in the AB pedals down position, for a dominant 7th chord. I've also found that it makes a great sounding raise from a 2nd to a b3rd, getting a minor triad in the no-pedal position.

Although I've only been playing steel about a year and a half, I think I personally prefer this to the whole-step raise. I had just the 1st string whole-step raise without the 2nd string half for several monthes, until I felt the need to go back to the 1/2. After several monthes, I hadn't really done much with the whole-step raise. I so far haven't been very drawn to the modern country-type licks. The few things I did with the whole-step raise sounded kind of out of place with the rest of the stuff I've come up with so far. So far, the 1/2 step fits for me very naturally into everything else as an organic whole. One downside that I've noticed, now that I've got the 1/2 step on a lever again, is that I've stopped doing certain cool bluesy licks that I had worked up to get a similar effect as the lever, by sliding up a fret from the AB position and playing on the top three strings with no pedals or levers.

I have always play A & B as main E9 pedals + the C pedal. Therefore, back when I started raising strings 1 & 2; I moved my 1st. 3 pedals into positions 2,3,4, and placed the 1st. and 2nd. str. change on pedal 1. I don,t use the change real often or in a fancy, complicated manor, so; it suites me fine in that position. I still raise the 1st. string 1/2 tone along with lowering the 6th. str. 1 tone on my RKL. I use the F# to G an awful lot, so; I figure I have the best of both worlds and wouldn't want to part with either change! My guitar has 9 pedals, so; there's no conflick with the C6 neck which has all the common changes, but they are in a slightly different configuration plus a few additional changes which make my guitar very comfortable and relaxing to play, and I find that during to course of a night on a playing job I find some use for every change on my 9 & 8 Guitar. E9 = 5+5 C6 = 6+5 "Big John" Bechtel, 20yr. Franklin proponent!