The Steel Guitar Forum

1968

JW

1953. Lots of body damage and rust. High mileage. Brain is like new. Hardly ever used.

Is pedal steel mostly a "baby boomer" instrument?

Oh, nevermind ....

1933, and still learning.

looks that way don't it Capt' ?

1951

I'm in that 27% group, and I've just started getting my UK pension here in the US! With a little bit of Social Security (which should last long enough to see ME out) starting next March, it takes the pressure off a bit!

Oh... but then there's medical insurance; never mind!!!

Am I a 'baby-boomer' at 65, or is that a later generation?

b0b wrote:Is pedal steel mostly a "baby boomer" instrument?

I don’t think so. If you just look at the raw numbers, everything looks like a baby boomer phenomenon, because there are so many more of them. In order to compare the proportion of the population in each age range who play steel (in epidemiological terms “the incidence” of steel playing), we need to see the above numbers adjusted for age, based upon the proportion of people of each age range in society. I did an age-adjustment using the age-range proportions of the population in the year 2000. The percentages look like this:

[tab]Birth year Age-adjusted percent
Pre 1920 0
1920-29 4.2
1930-39 21.0
1940-49 29.9
1950-59 28.2
1960-69 10.3
1970-79 4.7
1980-89 1.5
1990-99 0.2[/tab]

This flattens the proportions out somewhat for those born from the ‘30s through the ‘50s. This agrees more with what I think most of us consider the golden years of steel guitar, which predates the baby boomers.

But there needs to be another major correction, the proportion of steelers of each age-range who use the internet, are members of the Forum, and took part in the poll. I think it is fairly obvious that a much smaller proportion of older steelers use computers and are Forum members. And the very youngest age-ranges no doubt have the highest proportions of internet savvy Forum members. If you could know that correction factor, it would beef up the numbers of older steelers and cut the number of younger ones even more than we already see. What I think that would look like would be a fairly constant proportion of the population playing steel in each age range (no baby boomer bump) until those born in the ‘60s, at which point there would be a drop off even more precipitous than we see in the raw numbers and the age-adjusted numbers.

Nevertheless, because the baby boom generation was so large, in real numbers, it comprises both the largest number of steelers, and the last generation with a large number of steelers.

Roger, I am a 1947 model and have always considered myself a baby boomer. You were born close enough to the end of the war to be a boomer also.

Maybe the simple style of this forum, without ads and flashy graphics, appeals more to "my generation" than it does to younger folks.

Um, actually, no, Bent. Technically, the baby boom started in 1946, when so many soldiers came home from WWII, and started the families they had postponed. There is some disagreement on when it ended, some saying 1961, others extending it until the late '60s.

I doubt it, b0b. I can't imagine any steeler under the age of 40 who hasn't Googled steel guitar and found the Forum. At that point, I don't think the format would matter.

Hi David,
Yes, I guess you are correct technically. But maybe Roger's Dad was discharged from the army early, thus creating his own little baby boom

All I know is that, if I had been born a Martin 000-28 instead of a layabout, I'd be really valuable....

PS: My dad lost his left thumb as a boy, so he was stuck at home in Muswell Hill, North London, as a fire-watcher for the Civil Defence.

I guess that means that procreation isn't impeded by missing thumbs, and that dad got a head-start on our returning soldiers....

Jody Sanders : 1930. Don't forget Austin Stewart, about 1995. Jody.

Boy there is alot of old heads.

1949 here...just one more year and I would move into a younger category...

1936 was a very good year. 2036 will be a better one.

sept. 27 , 1957

1991

1974

34 years old

b0b wrote:Maybe the simple style of this forum, without ads and flashy graphics, appeals more to "my generation" than it does to younger folks.

b0b, how can you look at the pictures of us guys and consider them NOT to be "Flashy"??

Jack Francis wrote:

b0b wrote:Maybe the simple style of this forum, without ads and flashy graphics, appeals more to "my generation" than it does to younger folks.

b0b, how can you look at the pictures of us guys and consider them NOT to be "Flashy"??

LOL!! I meant "Flashy" in the technical sense of using Adobe Flash to create animated graphics.

Folks,, 1937 was a vintage year.