"Looking" For Tone In The Wrong Places?

[Ted Solesky]

Reece I agree with what you all are sayin but years ago, I saw Willie and Jimmy Day was workin with him. He was kind enough to spend his break, talking to me. He said 'the tone is in the hand'. He said he was picking on a guitar and without touching the amp settings, Buddy jumped in and the guitar sounded different. Of course good but different. His touch made it sound different. I found making the right hand perform well, is one of the hardest part of learning the steel. Ted

[Jimmie Martin]

Haven't you found that tone yet Reece.

[Reece Anderson]

Eric….I can only surmise why you continually refer to ShoBud guitars when it has nothing to do with myself, MSA or the topic of this thread.

I will tell you I have never said or done anything negative in word or deed that would, could or should erode or dilute anything concerning the history and tradition of ShoBud guitars. In fact I considered Shot Jackson a friend, and today I consider his son’s David and Harry as friends and highly respect them. Their combined contributions to steel guitar are immeasurable.

Your comment that we created false perceptions is simply not true.

In the middle 70’s sustain was a very high priority to most all players. Most importantly, it’s absolutely impossible for you to know of the dedication, time, effort and expenditures we went though to achieve what we truly believed was exceptional sustain.

Before we placed the words SuperSustain on our pickups and necks we had already achieved our goal and truly believed our sustain was exceptional. After our evaluations demonstrated so clearly the power of visual perception, we simply placed on our guitars a visual reference of what we already believed. There was nothing deceptive or morally wrong in stating what we believed and placing it on our pickups and necks. Your comment that I created deceptive hype is blatantly false.

Your inference about space age material is also totally untrue. Most everyone now knows carbon composite is an amazing material which has many applications, and I would say the term of “space age” applies because it’s used by NASA and has modern day far reaching applications due to it’s strength and lightweight, among other attributes.

As far as the cost of a carbon composite cabinet, I can tell you, that a double neck carbon composite cabinet that weighs about 3 ½ pounds, costs us more than one of our early completely finished double neck guitars with case. So once again your comment is blatantly false.

I trust the truth I have shared will help you on your way toward the Inner Peace you’re admittedly seeking.

Ted…..There’s no question the hands of different individuals can create a different sound when absolutely nothing has changed except the player. IF an inherent tone truly existed, and different players made it sound different, what then would constitute an identifiable sound/tone that would suggest an inherent tone signature exists?

Jimmie M….I don’t understand the motivation of your question because I have never said I wasn’t happy with my sound/tone, but the answer is….of course I’m happy, and I hope you are as well..

[Donny Hinson]

For those keeping score at home, the guitars called "Professional" didn't have any pot metal parts. Models called "Pro"-whatever or "Super Pro" did, after the mid Seventies.

So then, the "Pro" (as in "Pro II") wasn't short for "Professional"?

Gee, you learn something here every day.

Brint, Eric's hatred for Reece goes back many years. It's a personal thing, and the cognescenti here are all aware of that situation and the history behind it.

[Eric West]

No more Reece Anderson "Tone" threads.

Sorry I read this one.



EJL

[Brint Hannay]

For those keeping score at home, the guitars called "Professional" didn't have any pot metal parts. Models called "Pro"-whatever or "Super Pro" did, after the mid Seventies.

So then, the "Pro" (as in "Pro II") wasn't short for "Professional"?

Donny, of course "Pro" is short for "Professional". But each represents a different period of Sho-Bud production. A "technical", yet accurate, distinction. Wouldn't want Forum readers not well-versed in Sho-Bud history to get a false impression about the different models. As regards Eric, it's a moot point because by his own account his "Professional" is "gutted", and the parts replaced with parts from Duane Marrs and/or Jeff Surratt--and if I am not mistaken, their parts also do not include any made of pot metal.

So what's your point, vis-a-vis this thread, in making reference to pot metal in Sho-Buds?

[Eric West]

No more Reece Anderson "Tone" threads.

Sorry I read this one.



EJL

[basilh]

Dropping in for a "Quickie"
Have you EVER heard someone say "That's a beautiful looking guitar BUT it sounds awful" ?

I think the point made by Maurice is valid.
He's a superb player, gentleman and scholar, so why the antipathy (and may I add "Baiting")?.

Having experienced similar rebuttals I can only perceive that, he, his capabilities as a player and his involvement in the popularizing and development of the instrument somehow poses a threat to the detractors (Who's points I generally fail to comprehend).

What a state of affairs when the "Experts" get so denigrated, and who on earth here is more expert in the subject(s) covered than Maurice ?

I think that this and other like forums are for debate, not debunking, de-bagging and deprecating !

"Nana ka maka;
ho`olohe ka pepeiao;
pa`a ka waha."
Google it if you don't know..

[Donny Hinson]

So what's your point, vis-a-vis this thread, in making reference to pot metal in Sho-Buds?

Brint, I wasn't the one who introduced Sho~Bud into the discussion.

Both guitars were build for sound, and with musicians in mind, by and for musicians. Steel Players, specifically...

Neither was, to my knowledge built with deceptive marketing, or anything but what Shot and his guys genuinely thought "Sounded and played" the best.

(So then, I guess Shot and his guys thought pot metal was a good thing? Strange no one else copied that wonderful idea. )

In case you haven't noticed, I get somewhat agitated when people feel the need to tell us their favorite __________ is wonderful, and everything else is crap. ("Crap" was the word Eric used.) Sometimes, I honestly can't believe how many "gear snobs" we have here.

By the way, Brint, last time I heard you play, I believe you were playing a Sho~Bud guitar through an Evans amp. I thought you sounded pretty good...a fact which I attribute not to the Sho~Bud or the Evans, but to the player.

That's a strange concept, around here, I know.

[Reece Anderson]

If someone came on the forum and said they had a comparison evaluation that provided what they believed to be a conclusion that it WAS possible for them to consistently identify an inherent tone relative to a specific guitar, I would be glad to know something was being done to address the rumor/myth that inherent tone truly exists. Were someone to create a comparison evaluation procedure one would think they would be delighted to share it with the forum.

After reading it on the forum, the first thing I would do is contact some friends who has a guitar presumed to have inherent tone and at least two other brands, get together and make the comparison evaluations in accordance to the evaluation procedures that had been suggested.

After I tried their evaluation I would go on the forum, make my findings known, provide an explanation, and names of the participants. After which the evaluation could be discussed and if agreed necessary, be “readjusted” to be more conclusive, at which time I would try it again and provide my evaluation…….,

There’s certainly nothing complicated about that at all. But the fact is, not one person who suggests the evaluation we used over decades, has come forward to say they have tried it, or have a better comparison evaluation. Even those who don’t agree with the evaluation comparison can surely agree it’s better than no search for truth at all…..unless of course, they are afraid of what the truth will reveal.

Such an evaluation in either instance has anything to do with what happened decades ago, who said what, who is not truthful, talking about other instruments, demanding someone name the books they read 25 years ago, making derogatory remarks, calling others names, or anything else in an obvious attempt at deflection from the topic intent to search for answers.

Were someone to tell me they could identify a consistent inherent tone after taking the comparison evaluation, I would take them at their word, but I would also assume they could consistently do it, and would therefore be anxious to demonstrate their ability.

[b0b]

I would be glad to know something was being done to address the rumor/myth that inherent tone truly exists.

Now wait a minute, Reece. It is provable that every guitar has an "inherent tone". Ed Packard has published graphs that show the frequency response of many different guitars and no two are alike. It is no rumor or myth.

The perception of inherent tone by listening is the issue, not whether it exists. It clearly does exist, as Ed Packard's extensive research demonstrates.

[Jimmie Martin]

Well that just about does it folks. You can close this one up B0B. Oops its not mine to close. Sorry

[Reece Anderson]

b0b.....I have nothing but total respect for Ed Packard, both as a person and a professional. You are exactly right...every guitar has an inherent tone, but to my knowledge the inherent tone is unique "only" to each specific instrument, not a specific brand, to which I have eluded numerous times. In your words " the findings show no two guitars are alike". Even if the findings had shown an inherent tone existed in a specific brand, what advantage would there be in knowing it, if no one could identify it consistently?

Georg.....where in the world did you get such an idea. I never said anything about using a bad amp. The amp you prefer places you in a very small minority and no steel player I know would play professionally through an amp like you are recommending.

[Kevin Hatton]

Mr. Anderson, your record keeps skiping.

[Reece Anderson]

Georg.....You said "all amps used by steel players are bad if one wants to listen to the steel". IF an inherent tone could "only" be heard on an amp that sounds bad which and no one would use,......what's the point.

Mr.Hatton....great to see you're still around. FYI....I haven't had a record player for years.

[Kevin Hatton]

Mr. Anderson, is M.S.A. an acronym for "Most Sound Alike?

[Richard Damron]

Reece -

The first paragraph in your next to the last post is 100% on the money. The last sentence, however, poses a question to which I don't believe anyone has addressed. "Most" would agree that the differences between instruments are subtle, at best. Given that, it would appear that a prospective listener in your test would first need a giant set of ears in order to differentiate between the small nuances between PSG's. Secondly, that prospective listener would, most certainly, have to engage in exhaustive listening tests in order to be able to accurately characterize, and thus, identify a particular instrument. This would mean studying, in an aural sense, a multitude of instruments, committing to memory their tonal characteristics for instant recall in one of your proposed tests. A damning term in that equation is the fact that there appears to be no overall "brand" identification - that instruments from the same manufacturer may not have the exact same timbre as one assembled, for example, the day prior or the very next day after the one chosen as the "reference". Is there anyone within the forum who can adequately describe - in CONCRETE terms - the differences between, say, a dozen different instruments? I think not. I also shudder to think that someone would interject the hot-button called "hands" into my train of thought.

Given the above as truth, I cannot, for the life of me imagine but a small handful of Forum members who have had sufficient listening experience so as to even come close to identifying a particular instrument without having seen it. This tends to be proven in your tests. Further, there appears to be an applicable correlary between brands of PSG's and things political. A young person's parent may say "The ideologies of the (insert your preference) party provides the most effective means by which to govern". A respected PSG player might make the statement that a (insert your preference) PSG has tone to die for". In both cases the assertion is adopted by the recipient and becomes irrefutable gospel in their mind(s). The power of suggestion is unquestionable especially since virtually all would not engage in independent study in order to validate or debunk the supposed "facts" given them by one whom they choose to respect.

And so it is with PSG's. One is led to believe that a particular brand - built with choice Maple, of course - or, even the color (stated facetiously) dictates the standard by which all others be judged. Unfortunately, that "standard" cannot or has not been adequately heard by the masses. Thus it approaches nothing but heresay.

In spite of my deep admiration and respect for Ed Packard and Jim Palenscar, I seriously doubt that their continued investigations into the contributing elements within existing instruments will bear much accepted fruit - But ONLY because the average player will not be able to discern the established differences - a lack of listening experience being the dominating factor.

Given the fact that my 73 year old ears are somewhat in a state of disrepair, so to speak, I would not be a choice candidate for any listening test. Nor would a lot of other players entering the "twilight" years. But that's another subject entirely, isn't it - and even though it's applicable to the discussion.

I certainly admire your efforts over the years to establish a record of meaningful research but I'm afraid that I cannot accept the judgement of what appears to be "unqualified" subjects in your tests.

The above, of course, has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that I've "cleaned up" your album "The Moods Of Maurice Anderson", burned it to CD and listen to it fairly often.

Respectfully,

Richard

[Reece Anderson]

uhhh.....Kevin.......wwwwwhat? If it stood for all sound alike, why would I have started this thread.

Richard.....Excellent post and very insightful concerning comparisons. Thank you for chiming in, it's great to have you.

[Joe Miraglia]

Unless you have 20/20 hearing you should not play or listen to steel guitar. I have hearing loss,so I wiil never find that TONE. How many out there say,I can hear it,I can tell the difference,but have hearing loss. We don't hear the same as we did 30 years ago. Our mind tells us what we think we are hearing when we hear something that we heard 30 years ago.If you would hear it for the first time today it would sound different.That's why we keep looking for that tone.Admit it, we all hear different and at times we hear things differently. I'm always looking for that Hearing aid with that Tone Joe

[Kevin Hatton]

Skip, skip, skip, skip...

[Don Brown, Sr.]

The Subject (to me) is, to some extent, misleading.

"Looking for tone in the WRONG places" Can and does suggest a whole lot of different things.

I'd have to assume, it's now been changed to indicate the Subject at hand, is simply wanting the ones who say (or feel) they can, consistently identify a "specific brand of pedal steel" to perform a blind test, and then be willing to verify they can do it on a consistent basis. My answer to that is in a previous reply.

That is far from the subject wording. So to keep with that subject:

I believe that each and every current pedal steel made, even of the same make and model, with the exact same options, has a different inherent tone to some degree.

I also believe that the best sounding steel in the world, would sound like the worst sounding steel in the world, if the worst player (if there were such a player) in the world was playing it.

It's therefore, I believe real perceived tone as we hear it, (as played) comes from the player, from not only the hands, but from every portion of his/her being. As if the very heart and soul flows from the body, and into the instrument.

Just my personal opinion, but it does apply to the Topic.

Even with a different player, picking any one string, each will get a somewhat different tone out of that same string, on the same steel. There are a whole lot of variables.

For each player to be happy, it has to be with them setting behind a steel, and have it responding to them, so they are hearing what to them, makes up a great overall tone.

Quite naturally, others will have a difference of opinion. As well, they should be expected to have his/her own opinion.

Question of (I think) importance here:

Has anyone ever seen Nic du Toit's pedal steel he plays? I for one haven't. But what a Great Tone I feel he truly has... How could that be possible, if it were in the eyes?

I've never seen him play his steel, but I've heard him play his steel. And, I think he has one of the best overall tones, I've ever heard played. Again, other's opinions may vary.. So, someone please answer that question, as to the Eyes being responsible for what the Ears are hearing?

I think the eyes have to do with how we perceive a person to be, much as in reading posts, seeing Avatars etc. (gosh, maybe I'd better change mine). But I honestly believe they have very little to do with what we hear in playing................ Don

[Pat Comeau]

Don said-

I honestly believe they have very little to do with what we hear in playing................ Don

What Reece is saying about the eyes having an effect on things we hear and see is very true in some ways,

just remember back in the years when we only had radio to listen too and we heard guys like Buck, Merle and Gene ect..., try to get in Nashville now these days if you're not a hunk or a model they'll just won't even talk to you, so for me eyes have a lot to do with what we hear and see, it is an optical illusion of the reality, if it please the eyes peoples will accept it in todays world

In the old days we use to see with our ears...and today we hear with our eyes.