The Steel Guitar Forum

For me it's more of a question of how one reacts to a player with such a profound influence.

Do you blindly step into the light and try to emulate every aspect of the player in the hope of reflecting some of the brilliance, or do you admire that brilliance and let it illuminate your own path?

I suppose it's really a combination of both and varying amounts for each of us.

I agree with Dustin Kleingartner.

Buddy and all the other greats of his era built an empire of musical and mechanical creativity on pedal steel that may not ever be matched. But all great empires fall (of their own weight and mass?), followed by an era of darkness and chaos, and then finally something new emerges and another great empire begins.

We may be in the musical ruins now, but the quality of the instruments in circulation and the developing interest of more and more players, including youngsters, almost guarantees a resurgence of pedal steel into the mainstream (is there a “mainstream”?) at some point.

I am totally out of this conversation, and I may be a total oddball. But I never followed any particular steel guitarist. In fact I never knew (or cared) who played with Buck Owens, or Merle Haggard or Charley Pride. I just tried to emulate their recorded licks.

Once I learned enough to get gigs with Country Bands, I just kept playing what I heard in my head. I am also a cheapskate so I didn't buy records or tapes.

So I am not a fantastic player, and I can't copy Buddy Emmonds, Curly Chalker or Jerry Byrd... not even close.
But I did create a few licks, and play well enough to do some studio work and get gigs on the road and in town.

"Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery" Someone once said... but I believe that every musician owes it to himself, and others, to stretch out from there and be creative. Not just a copycat.

Tim Sheinman, I know your post is sincere and you mean no harm, however your premises are not based in historical fact. I am not criticizing you. Reading your post it is apparent there is much history on this subject you are not aware of or have misconstrued. This is no fault of yours. I suggest you study the subject further and you will be able to rebut all your points. It's a great study with lots of surprises and a lifetime of inspiration. I wish you well.

Dustin Kleingartner wrote:Everyone wants new and interesting topics to discuss on this forum... well here it is. I'm not completely sure what to make of this, but I do know that it is more interesting than talking about volume pedal pots and Katana settings

I gotta disagree with you there.

robert kramer wrote:Tim Sheinman, I know your post is sincere and you mean no harm, however your premises are not based in historical fact. I am not criticizing you. Reading your post it is apparent there is much history on this subject you are not aware of or have misconstrued. This is no fault of yours. I suggest you study the subject further and you will be able to rebut all your points.

Robert, I'm afraid I think you'll have to do a little better. There's very little of any historical content, but if you do have to supply a correct account, if you think it is important, rather than advise study.

all 4 of your arguing points are either off the mark or just wrong, Tim. and I'm sorry you never had the opportunity to witness Buddy perform.

Click bait title. Of all the players that say it has to be done a certain way, even Buddy's way, Buddy was not amongst them. He was wildly creative- his influence, the clichés he created- that's all out of his hands, up to you, and the music market.

Tim Sheinman, I shouldn't have replied to your post as I came off as criticizing you. It's a great subject and you have approached the subject in a new and very interesting way with a very valid question - well thought out and presented very clearly. This is a great feature of the Steel Guitar Forum and its members.

My answer to your question is this: You're raising a historical question without enough knowledge of the subject's history. I could refute each of your points at length with documented facts confirmed from multiple sources: print and also several forms of media. I'm not going to - you can either take my word for it or not. I just am suggesting you look into further. There is a surprising amount of knowledge available online. It would be more than worth you time.

Let me repeat - you poised a valid question and you certainly weren't being negative about Emmons or his career.

There's no use trying to hide behind improved syntax. Welcome back, Bill Hankey.

Jim Cooley wrote:There's no use trying to hide behind improved syntax. I know it's really you, Bill Hankey.

ROTFL!

...i really do...

We can argue until the end of time on whether the original thoughts are correct, partially correct or wrong.

I'm the same age as Emmons would be if still alive. Being from that era I probably look at it differently and thus interpret Tim's comments different than a relatively young steel guitar picker would. When I stated playing pedal steel guitar (1969) I had no idea who Buddy Emmons was. I was listening to Hal Rugg, Weldon Myrick, Lloyd Green and Pete Drake. It wasn't until years later (about 1978) that I discovered Emmons.

Emmons was genius and an innovator. I wouldn't consider he has "ruined" steel guitar.

Buddy, to me, was a true inspiration all the way around. He was also a humble kind of guy, and I truly admire him for that. I am with Erv, Tar and Feathers!!!!!

I use to be married to a gal who "over-thunk" everything. The key phrase here is "use to be".

If Tim wants to live in his steel world without Buddy's work and following,...fine....enough already...let's get real here,...this is a set up.

Buddy didnt ruin steel music , I did. Just ask those who attended some of my concerts when I was learning to play.

Buddy was a genius with a remarkable talent. end of story.

The big question is why does a Steel Guitarist want to sound like a Guitarist , why does a Guitarist want to sound like a Steel Guitarist , why does a Jazz Guitarist want to sound like a Sax Player , why does Robert Randolph wish to sound like Clapton etc..etc.. etc...
Some would argue that is because they wish to show off their technical skills or show off. I know I may be getting off the point here but because of the limitations of the Pedal Steel it seems those capable Steel Players are trying to prove anything is possible if you have the correct technique and copedant changes on this instrument.Anyway going back to the Emmons debate , I believe everything that is said is correct same as I believe everything I read in the newspapers is the truth.

Joe Krumel wrote:If Tim wants to live in his steel world without Buddy's work and following,...fine....enough already...let's get real here,...this is a set up.

Hi Joe, this is a little personal here and to my mind has no place in the debate. As I've said before I'm actually quite a fan of Emmons and very much enjoy the existence of his work.

I'm not sure what you mean by a 'set up', but I think that's really for you. Anyone who gets this far and doesn't read the original post, perhaps may assume this is a debate about Emmons' merits as a player, which it is absolutely not.

I sure do not believe he hurt us at all. Look at Night Life which he cut in the 60's if I remember correctly. You sure did not hear that in country music in those days. I look at Buddy Emmons as a man that set the standards very high when it came to playing. He had everything a player would want, even a mind that exceeds the biggest part of steel players today.

I'm not gettin' this thread .

If it was an Aprils Fools thing well then ok, but it went over my head !

Defending Buddy's playing and entire career is not something that ever crossed my mind.

Tim Sheinman wrote:

1. Emmons and his followers made the steel all about chops.

Not sure how you're defining "followers" but Buddy probably caused the pros to up their technical game. As far as "all about chops," I think of Dan Dugmore's "Blue Bayou" solo; Al Perkins on Patty Loveless's "Crazy Arms;" Greg Leisz's "Wild Mountain Thyme;" Buddy's "Every Time You Touch Me (I Get High);" etc.

2. Emmons' most exciting work was very early and didn't last for long.
Well, yeah. When something is new, it's exciting. When you get more used to the new thing it becomes less exciting (e.g., iPhones) But maybe the phenomenon becomes more interesting and richer as time goes on.

3. Outside his music, Emmons was a drab frontman for a thrilling instrument.

This is just trolling. Outside his music, Spade Cooley was a convicted murderer.

4. Emmons' genius means that the genre of PSG has stagnated in trying to constantly emulate him.

Do some research. See Daniel Lanois, BJ Cole, Mike Perlowin, Julian Tharpe, Al Petty, Dave Easley et al

How's that Vol. 2 of "Together Again" coming?

Frank Freniere wrote: How's that Vol. 2 of "Together Again" coming?

Damn good. But I got a bit sidetracked. By this.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IAMIRqGWavk

Wow. Degraded into another example of the kind folks and the jerks displaying their "discussion" talents on the forum.

Chris Walke wrote:Wow. Degraded into another example of the kind folks and the jerks displaying their "discussion" talents on the forum.

Good description of what you just did.