Page 3 of 3
Posted: 24 Mar 2005 11:01 am
by J D Sauser
Let's go back a little bit again:
I have always wondered what it realy was, what Bud Isaacs tried to do when he elaborated his E-to-A6th tuning.
1- Did he mean to create this change with that sond it would do in mind?
2- Or was he going for a chord change (re-tune) with one pedal and then found what sound it would realy generate?
3- Or was he trying to create a tuning that switches minor thirds for major thirds and sixth's back an forth (eliminating hawaiian style bar slants), and again later (once the guitar was strung up) found out he had a nice changing sound?
Has anybody ever talked tu Bud Isaacs about this?
... J-D.
Posted: 6 May 2005 8:18 am
by Graham Griffith
I've only just got around to reading this thread. In answer to Pete Knapton's query ... yes, Zane Beck's tuning uses the outside "chromatic"(a misnomer)strings 1 & 2 in the ascending order. However, string 2 is a "C#" and is raised to "D" at the same time as the "B" to "C#" raise and to "D#" with a knee lever which also raises the equivalent of the 9th string "D" to "E".
It is usually not realised or acknowledged that Zane Beck's tuning is a "universal" tuning that precedes the now (relatively)standardised "universal tuning".
Do a search on Zane Beck and you'll discover a lot more about it in previous discussions.
Graham
Posted: 2 Sep 2007 1:41 pm
by Alan Brookes
Pete Knapton wrote:Ok, I'm quite new to pedal steel so i hope this doesn't sound dumb.
With the E9 tuning, why are the top four strings out of order? I guess its for the right hand method... is this for ease of a rolling picking style?
If someone used a comping style rather than a picking style, wouldn't D# E F# G# work better?
Does anyone use the acending note setup?
I'm sure there's some good reasons why the standard E9 tuning is this way.
I've been trying to work it out and can't find anything in the archives.
Thanks, Pete <FONT><p>[This message was edited by Pete Knapton on 02 January 2005 at 06:18 AM.]</p></FONT>
I know this is an old thread, and worth reading several times, but I don't believe anyone answered Pete's question.
Posted: 11 Dec 2014 10:37 am
by Alan Brookes
Seven years later and still no answer.
Posted: 11 Dec 2014 11:46 am
by Jack Hanson
Alan Brookes wrote:Seven years later and still no answer.
And it's still worth rereading. Thanks for bringing this thread back to life.
Posted: 11 Dec 2014 2:19 pm
by Lane Gray
The Bb6 Uni puts the equivalent of the F# inside.
Posted: 12 Dec 2014 6:06 am
by Tony Prior
the answer to the question; WHY was it invented.....?
easy answer; because if the E9th wasn't invented then we would be carrying around a D10 with TWO tunings that we can't play
Posted: 12 Dec 2014 6:19 am
by Charlie McDonald
Pete Knapton wrote:... is this for ease of a rolling picking style?
I'd say that's it, in the sense, a layout that would enable playing faster scales, such that the forefathers in their wisdom recognized that someone would eventually do.
Like Tony's answer, it reminds me of what Tulsa steeler Cal Freeman said: 'We did it that way in case we had to do it that way.'
E9th Charts
Posted: 13 Dec 2014 7:53 am
by Charles Kurck
Posted: 13 Dec 2014 11:25 am
by Les Cargill
Alan Brookes wrote:Pete Knapton wrote:Ok, I'm quite new to pedal steel so i hope this doesn't sound dumb.
With the E9 tuning, why are the top four strings out of order? I guess its for the right hand method... is this for ease of a rolling picking style?
If someone used a comping style rather than a picking style, wouldn't D# E F# G# work better?
Does anyone use the acending note setup?
I'm sure there's some good reasons why the standard E9 tuning is this way.
I've been trying to work it out and can't find anything in the archives.
Thanks, Pete <FONT><p>[This message was edited by Pete Knapton on 02 January 2005 at 06:18 AM.]</p></FONT>
I know this is an old thread, and worth reading several times, but I don't believe anyone answered Pete's question.
I believe Buddy Emmons answers it here:
http://www.amug.org/~a249/qa.html
About 40% of the way down, search for " I added the F# and D# in 1962 before my first session with Ray Price."
Posted: 16 Dec 2014 1:11 pm
by Herb Steiner
What's interesting to me, reading this thread again, are the thoughts of many past forumites who are now gone: Moon in Alaska, Harry Hess, Al Marcus, CC Johnson among them. And those who were so frequently here but now hardly ever, like Carl Dixon and Buddy.
Posted: 16 Dec 2014 2:33 pm
by Jerry Jones
I had the same thought. It would be nice to have a "RIP" designation in the avatar panel to remind us of lost members as we read through these old posts.
Posted: 19 Aug 2015 10:14 am
by b0b
Good idea, Jerry. Done.
Posted: 19 Aug 2015 1:32 pm
by Ian Rae
It seems generally accepted that the present E9 pedal tuning evolved out of Bud Isaacs' combined E/A tuning with all the famous players making their contributions along the way.
Back in March 2005 J D Sauser wrote:
I have always wondered what it really was, what Bud Isaacs tried to do when he elaborated his E-to-A6th tuning.
1- Did he mean to create this change with that sound it would do in mind?
2- Or was he going for a chord change (re-tune) with one pedal and then found what sound it would really generate?
3- Or was he trying to create a tuning that switches minor thirds for major thirds and sixth's back an forth (eliminating hawaiian style bar slants), and again later (once the guitar was strung up) found out he had a nice changing sound?
I’ve not been around pedal steels very long, but from my knowledge of the history of other instruments, it seems likely to me that Bud Isaacs was looking for a quick change from E13 to A6 and little else. If it worked, he could carry less guitar around. [The condensing of necks has continued right down to the uni-12.] The discovery that moving the pedal on a sounding string gave an expressive result would have come as a pleasant surprise (on the orchestral harp - the only available comparison - it doesn’t). His musical genius enabled him to capitalise on this unexpected bonus but the long-term consequences he could not have foreseen. So answers 2 & maybe 3, I reckon, but not 1 because I don't believe you could imagine that extraordinary and iconic effect without hearing it first.
If I'm wrong, I look forward to being corrected.
Posted: 19 Aug 2015 1:43 pm
by Alan Brookes
Buddy Emmons wrote:Carl has pretty much of the history nailed except that I added the F# and D# at the same time, which was after Jimmy Day added an E to the middle of the tuning and Ralph added the high G#.
As for the Herb Remington story, my 1954 triple neck Bigsby came with the same inverted tuning that Joaquin, Speedy West and Herb all used, so I too had the tuning before I ever played a Sho~Bud. It was somewhat limited in its use so I removed it after a year or so and used the third neck to experiment with.
It makes a good story to say that I got the idea from someone else or from the inverted tuning itself, but the thought behind the F# and D# notes was to fill the gap between the G# and C# pedal note of the E9th tuning. The old West/Murphey/ Remington inverted tuning was structured around an F#9th chord or Bb m7 b5 chord and never came close to serving that purpose, with or without pedals.
The reason behind the F# and D# ending up as 9th and 10th strings of the Sho~Bud is because I was touring with Ray Price and played a Sho~Bud permanent model that was impossible to change without a blowtorch. I felt that the E9th diatonic theory was a good idea and putting it on as soon as it hit me would give me time to test it on the road and either scrap it or keep exploring. The only logical place to keep it apart from the rest of the tuning was on strings 9 and 10, so that's where they went until I got off the road and could take the guitar to Shot to change.
As it turned out, I liked the sound but a recording session with Ray was scheduled before I could get to Shot, so I recorded "You Took Her Off My Hands" with the strings in the 9th and 10th positions. Had I been playing a road guitar with a changeable mechanism, I would have originally structured the tuning as it is today and the bottom string controversy would have never existed.
<center>
[This message was edited by Buddy Emmons on 08 July 2002 at 02:00 PM.] </center>
I was always under the impression that E9 originated from the open E tuning which had always been popular with blues guitarists, and the re-entry strings were added by Buddy Emmons.
Posted: 19 Aug 2015 2:04 pm
by Ian Rae
I think it's understood by all that the "E9th tuning" of the title of this thread refers to the modern conventional setup with three pedals. Bud Isaacs set the ball rolling in that direction, starting with a tuning that was in turn derived from the open E that Alan describes.