The Steel Guitar Forum

Posted: **13 Dec 2006 12:09 pm**

only the most die-hard musical theorists will disagree.

Even the most lightweight musical theorist will disagree!

It's about harmonic context- and if you don't know/don't care about that then it doesn't matter what you call it. Call it tab number 0 if you like!

For theory geeks: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tgDcC2LOJhQ
------------------
http://www.johnmcgann.com
Info for musicians, technique tips etc. Joaquin Murphey transcription book, Instructional DVDs, books and more...

[This message was edited by John McGann on 13 December 2006 at 12:10 PM.][This message was edited by John McGann on 13 December 2006 at 12:16 PM.]

Posted: **13 Dec 2006 12:23 pm**

I am the lightweight music theorist that J. McGann refers to, and yes, I disagree.

Posted: **13 Dec 2006 12:30 pm**

"What's in a name? that which we call a rose by any other name would smell as sweet."

--Shakespeare

Posted: **13 Dec 2006 12:40 pm**

"If you paid for a dozen roses on Valentine's Day and got carnations for the same money, I'd say you got hosed!"

-Shakespear (21th century con man)

Posted: **13 Dec 2006 1:07 pm**

If a group of scientists got together to dissect a flower, putting the petals in one test tube, the stem in another, the thorns in another,, then in which test tube is the flowers beauty *

Posted: **13 Dec 2006 1:45 pm**

,[This message was edited by John McGann on 19 December 2006 at 12:16 PM.]

Posted: **13 Dec 2006 2:07 pm**

Wow - now we have people who do not read music telling those that do.. how to do it.

b0b was dead on. The open B6 chord that is formed when the 4th and 8th strings are lowered 1/2 step does not contain an Eb!

Are you serious?

This thread should be in the humor section..

Posted: **13 Dec 2006 2:19 pm**

+[This message was edited by John McGann on 19 December 2006 at 12:17 PM.]

Posted: **13 Dec 2006 2:24 pm**

Lest it be thought that I’m arguing in favor of ignorance:

Of course the theory mavens are correct (most of them, anyway), and I know and understand what they're saying. But in practical terms, for playing music and communicating quickly and clearly with other musicians for performance purposes (in situations where the music is not on paper), it makes more sense to me, if, for example, you're playing a song in the key of E and the melody comes to the fifth of the V augmented chord (Baug.) and somebody says, "Wait, what's that note?" to say "G" instead of "F double sharp", which would be technically correct. They're going to know where to find a G with no problem, but have to think "F double sharp? Oh, that's the same as G". I think calling notes by the names that are most convenient just makes more sense in a practical situation.

In Western music, which includes virtually all the music pedal steel guitarists play, (“We play both kinds of music: Country AND Western!

”) regardless of the fine tuning choices of any instrument, we are using the Equal Temperament system in which we are able to modulate freely from one key to another or use chords that are not diatonic to the key (e.g. a G major chord in a song that’s in E), so the enharmonic notes are not different pitches in practice. The theoretical distinction really has its main function with regard to writing music on paper, the idea being to make it easier to read by as much as possible not having different notes share the same line or space. (But even there if you write a chromatic run the notes that fall between the scale notes have to share the line or space of the note before them or after them, so you choose according to which choices will require the fewest accidentals.)

One way of looking at stating the tuning and setup of a pedal steel is, What do you use it for? I have a lever that lowers my 5th and 10th strings ½ step. If you say the tuning’s in E, therefore everything should be stated in sharps, I say the primary thing I use that lever for is to flat the fifth of E and E7th, so it makes more sense to call it a Bb lever than an A# lever. The 2nd string and 4th and 8th lower note is a tossup—who says its function in a B6th chord defines it? In open position (with standard changes) it’s major seventh of E major chord (D#), third of B major chord (D#), flatted fifth of A major chord (Eb), fifth of G#m (D#), fifth of Abm (Eb), dominant seventh of F7th chord (Eb)… Call it what you like.

Posted: **13 Dec 2006 3:01 pm**

¶[This message was edited by John McGann on 19 December 2006 at 12:17 PM.]

Posted: **13 Dec 2006 3:12 pm**

We don't see lots of A# chord symbols either but they do exist. It makes my fillings ache to see A#m7b5 and I just think Bbm7b5 (that hurts a little less). Even if it's 'wrong'.

John, that's all I was saying. I don't think we disagree about anything at all.

Actually, I play a pure E9th tuning--I tune my 2nd string to D and raise it with a lever to Eb (D'OH!--D#!!!)

[This message was edited by Brint Hannay on 13 December 2006 at 03:16 PM.]

Posted: **13 Dec 2006 3:23 pm**

EDITED...Too slow on the uptake. McGann answered far better than I ever could...[This message was edited by Tucker Jackson on 13 December 2006 at 03:25 PM.]

Posted: **13 Dec 2006 3:33 pm**

This thread reminds me of a joke...

Q: "What is the quickest way to get a Steel Guitar Player to turn down?"

A: Put music in front of him

Levels the playing field quite a bit and allows for more session work (Commercials, Radio/TV production, etc..)

Now if you don't read music that is OK. Nobody is saying that you can't play the instrument if you can't read.

IMHO it has helped me secure way more work as a player than if I didn't know how... That is all I am saying..

Just funnin' here....

Good discussion at least....

Posted: **13 Dec 2006 3:58 pm**

Gown Fission.

[This message was edited by John McGann on 19 December 2006 at 12:18 PM.][This message was edited by John McGann on 19 December 2006 at 01:11 PM.]

Posted: **13 Dec 2006 5:01 pm**

I learned to read music to prepare to be a musician.. the studio work I have done just happened.

Most of the music I read is when I'm playing guitar but there have been instances where being able to read a piece of music came in really handy when playing on a steel call.

There is a lot more going on on a piece of music than just notes...

Good discussion...

Posted: **13 Dec 2006 5:45 pm**

As several people have mentioned, the names of the notes are just a convention. The way notation has evolved gives the same names to notes with different frequencies.

Written music defaults to the key of C. To write in any other key you have to put flats or sharps in the key signature. When you do that you're saying, "Yes, I know this looks like an F but every time you see something on this line treat it as F#".

If you think about it, musical notation is pretty ridiculous. There must be a better method. To those to whom it looks easy, it's because you're used to it and you've memorized the sharps and flats in each key.

Someone once made a piano keyboard which slid from side to side, so if you wanted to play a piece written in C in D you just slid the keyboard two places to the right. It never caught on !

When I was working out chord shapes many decades ago I came up with a system of naming the notes 1 through 11, and then writing the triads, sixths, sevenths, etc., in Algebra. I still use it when writing tuning worksheets in Excel.

Posted: **13 Dec 2006 5:50 pm**

As for whether music theory is "science" or "naming convention" - "Science" as in repeatable and provable, you betcha.

For the record, I didn't say, one way or the other, whether "music theory" was or was not a "science". In response to this statement:

Period. What YOU call them doesn't change the science of the E Major key signature.

I said:

What to call musical notes is not a "science", but a "naming convention".

Physical scientists and mathematicians also have naming conventions - they allow us to communicate with each other more easily. But the "science" part of science doesn't depend on those conventions. They're just they're for convenience. I think that is also true about musical notation.

I think we already agreed that one could call E major Fb major - the reason we all agree it's not a good idea is that it would be even more difficult to read with all the flats, including the double flat. But the basic principles of music theory would still hold if we decided to use Fb major, right?

As a physical scientist and engineer, I don't want to debate whether music theory is a "science". I have enough trouble arguing with social scientists about whether or not it is a "science".

But if you want to call it a science, great. Let's see - the Berklee College of Musical Science and Engineering? Has quite a ring, don't you think?

Posted: **14 Dec 2006 6:58 am**

Now, never you mind

[This message was edited by John McGann on 19 December 2006 at 01:12 PM.]

Posted: **14 Dec 2006 8:51 am**

Some bass players can find Eb easier than D#. Honestly! They look at me funny when I say "D#", like there's no such note...

Posted: **14 Dec 2006 9:01 am**

If you really want to cause confusion, tell everyone you're going to play in B#. Don't forget to write all those #s in the key signature !

Posted: **14 Dec 2006 10:20 am**

A note with two different names is called an enharmonic equivilant, if you are acending from d the next note would be called d sharp & decending from e would be called e flat. for those who haven't studied traditional or modern theory you can
call it either or as long as you hit the note in tune & have fun thats all that matters IMHO[This message was edited by Bruce Snow on 14 December 2006 at 10:44 AM.][This message was edited by Bruce Snow on 14 December 2006 at 11:08 AM.]

Posted: **14 Dec 2006 12:04 pm**

Bruce, if you are talking about a single note, you are right. But, in the key of E, it is called D#, whether you are ascending or descending. The E9 copedant is designed to play chords and scales in the key of E. It helps understand the function of the strings and changes in terms of the E scale and chords if you refer to everything as in the key of E. So there is no absolute right or wrong here. It depends on your frame of mind.

Posted: **14 Dec 2006 12:09 pm**

I totally agree with Doug Beaumier,D#!!!
And the E->Eb change should be E->D#
Also E->F E->E#
and B->Bb B->A#[This message was edited by John Sluszny on 14 December 2006 at 12:10 PM.]

Posted: **14 Dec 2006 12:16 pm**

Well........this thread started as a question about a TUNING, correct? When refering to the string note, for the purpose of tuning, does it really have any relevance to a key signature??? I think not. The lowered note could be called either E to Eb, or E to D#...no difference when refering to that particular note being tuned[i/]...IMHO.

Of course, all of this theory being discussed is valid once chords or scales are referenced.

Again, lest I be misunderstood, # or b doesn't really make any difference when the frame of reference is the tuning of various individual notes on the guitar.....or is someone going to say we are tuning an E note to the KEY of E???

The practicality of describing the mechanical note changes made by our instrument while tuning is not actually bound by strict music theory as is being discussed. Or do some of you say it really is???

Posted: **14 Dec 2006 12:16 pm**

Ever heard of Shenkerian Analysis?

ahh, the theory system devised by Michael Schenker. If you study it long enough you end up with a headache known as a "Schenker sore"

[This message was edited by P Gleespen on 14 December 2006 at 12:21 PM.]

The Steel Guitar Forum

Is it D# or Eb for E9th Tuning???