The Steel Guitar Forum

Gene Jones wrote:While the "star" was marketing his latest recording to mostly deaf ears, the steel player was being solicited and entertained by a covey of an adoring public, mostly females.

Man, either I was born a few decades too late, or we've been operating in parallel universes, Gene...

Has anybody ever worked through the Ted Greene "Chord Chemistry" and/or "Modern Chord Progressions" book, executing everything in there on E9th, or C6th, or E9th and C6th, or some form of 12- or 14-string Universal tuning?

If (as I admit I suspect) no one has, I'd stick my neck out and say I'd wager no one could--all that stuff probably couldn't be executed on any of the above configurations of pedal steel.

A risky wager, that, as there are some very studious and capable folk here on the forum who take their music theory and musicianship quite seriously.

In particular, which chords in this guitar pantheon do you believe to be inaccessible to the pedal steel guitar, in either the contemporary E9 3+5 or C6 5+4 setups, particularly if you concede the root to the bass instrument, as is the practical case most of the time?

There are only so many combinations of intervals possible between four notes in a row (i.e the most that can be plucked on the steel at one time) and pretty much all of these combinations are to be found somewhere on one or both necks.

This is why these setups have been so universally accepted and utilized by players of great talent and prowess in the performance of pretty much every musical genre conceivable. Most who can afford it have at least one "trick" pull of their own, but the overall conception of the instrument as represented by the modern "Emmons" and "Day" copedants represents a complementary pair of friggin' music theory computers without equal. It can, however, take a lifetime to figure out how to program the thing...

I can only claim familiarity with the 10 string E9th, as that is what I have played (despite having C6th necks available too) since 1983. I do not have a list of examples, but one extreme one that comes to mind is the fully-voiced 13#11 chord one can get on C6th with pedals 6&7. If that can be played on a 3+5 E9, it's news to me.

(I'll grant you, even Ted Greene couldn't play that one on guitar, either, as it's a seven-note chord! Mentioning Ted Greene was of course taking it to an extreme, as David M. pointed out, but what those books are full of is not simply chord types but innumerable voicings and voice leadings.)

But though I can't now supply specific examples, I have had occasions, in improvising at home, when I have wanted to include a particular voicing of a chord in a progression and I want it enough that I stop and carefully and systematically compare that configuration of notes to all the notes my strings and changes will give me at every fret of the octave, and sometimes it simply cannot be done. This despite the fact that I have a pretty maxed-out number of changes.

The fact that one can "concede the root to the bass player", omit certain less-essential members of a chord, imply a chord in passing by only two notes, etc. doesn't negate the fact that the changes available do not in fact enable every voicing one might desire of every chord.

I only spoke of this in response to the continual drumbeat from certain quarters that "x amount of changes is enough, you can do anything you want with that." Why having fewer note configurations available is somehow actually better than having more escapes me.

I personally consider the E9th to be a fantastic tuning, a gold mine of possibilities that I have found richly satisfying for 30 years and expect to for the rest of my life. (The only change I have made to the setup I had in 1984 was adding one pedal about five years ago.)

As you have noted, Brint, brilliant as it is there are limitations to the E9 tuning in the skanky chord department, and that is where the C6 setup shines. The two necks represent entirely different ways of accessing music itself, and as such take entirely different visualizations to play. In fact one limitation of the C6 neck is the relative scarcity of nice clean major triads, quite the opposite of the E9's offerings.

While the six-string guitar was originally conceived as a solo instrument, with its own bass and rhythm sections, the steel guitar was never designed to play bass lines (although a number of players are quite proficient at it), and the concept in its most basic form on either neck revolves around understanding and implementing inversions and substitutions over a bass line played on another instrument. Like most traditional instruments, it can produce beautiful solo music, but it is inherently an ensemble instrument.

Where it gets really tricky is when it's time to play a fat skanky chord progression simultaneously with a melody line that is NOT actually contained within said chords and it can make your head hurt until you find that one way to pull it off...then later you stumble across another way to do it, and then later....

Interestingly, "Corcovado" and "Take the "A" Train" (for me at least) are close to impossible to play solo on E9 but are sweet and simple on C6, while "One Note Samba" is a royal pain on C6 and a breeze with the E9 neck. "All of Me" is lots of fun on either, go figure...

Dave Grafe wrote:

Bit dissapointed with all the "wrongs", just because you do not agree with something does not mean they are wrong.

You may state opinions all day and night, son, but bottom liner if your facts are incorrect or the scope of your vision is inadequate for the subject at hand your opinions are bound to be, well, wrong. It's nothing personal, it's a teaching moment, are you up for it?

OK educate me show mw the you tube vidoes with titles like "amazing 14 year old pedal steel player" like you can for virtually any other instrument, then I will say ok pedal steel is safe, and go away. The scope of my vision is that I see an instrument that is going to become extinct unless you attract youngsters. The youngest player I can find is Roosevelt Collier, I presume he meets with your approval, he certainly ticks a lot of the boxes as far as I am concerned, and some of the comments from his YouTube videos are enlightening. Ones like wow "What instrument is that" "I wish I could play like that."

My vision is suggesting like I did that somebody could possibly come up with a tuning that lends itself to contemporary music without immediately transporting the novice to Hawaii or Nashville. If it is not possible well that is a pity.

Maybe you need some genius to win Americas Got Talent playing Pedal Steel in some mind numbingly brilliant style that takes the country by storm,and creates a resurgence of the instrument.

It is interesting that i'm being slaughtered by 3 guys who have broken the mould and moved the instrument on, I was expeecting to be slaughtered by the traditionalists.

John RJ Wilson wrote:

My vision is suggesting like I did that somebody could possibly come up with a tuning that lends itself to contemporary music ...

They did. It's called E9. Don't think for a second that the tuning is limited to traditional country music. You heard all the guys on the different styles thread. 90% or more of them play E9.

The E9 tuning was not invented by any one person. It is the result of the collective thinking of Buddy Emmons, Jimmy Day, Jimmy Crawford, Lloyd Green, Pete Drake and others. The used to tinker and experiment, and them to meet every week at Jimmy Crawford's and discuss what they tried. They figured out what works, and what doesn't. Their goal was to make the tuning as versatile as possible, not just for country, but for anything, and they succeeded.

We do not need a new tuning. The E9 tuning is as good for playing rock (and classical music) as it is for playing country. (I think 12 strings are better for both rock and classical music than 10. The extra strings allow you to play bass lines and power chords.)

...without immediately transporting the novice to Hawaii or Nashville.

Well, you know, even a rocket scientist with a degree in quantum physics starts off by learning that 2 and 2 are 4. You have to start somewhere. Traditional music is a good training ground.

John, I have a challenge for you. Get yourself a Stage one or similar entry level pedal steel, and learn to play the Pink Floyd or David Lindley stuff, and then start using pedals to enhance your playing. You'd be amazed at how well the PSG fits in the styles you like.

Debating the tuning of the steel seems a bit silly to me. The standard E9 and C6 tunings work. People have altered changes, altered tunings, added strings, etc to their personal tastes. Players will most likely continue to do so.

This thread was meant to start a dialogue about ways to make the pedal steel more accessible to new eyes and ears, as well as ways to get it in to the hands of potentially interested players to give them the realization that it is not as intimidating as it looks .

We are all here because we made a connection to the instrument in one way or another. A lot of us play other instruments as well. We may take up other instruments down the road. Music speaks to us...the tool we use to express that is based on our past influences and current tastes.

One person might see Robert Randolph for the first time and be inspired, another person might see Mike Perlowin play in a completely different setting and be inspired. Another might see Tommy White or Zane King and be inspired, or hear Ralph Mooney on a record and become inspired. The question is, are there more ways to cultivate and grow that inspiration in potential players.

Brint Hannay wrote:fully-voiced 13#11 chord one can get on C6th with pedals 6&7. If that can be played on a 3+5 E9, it's news to me.
(I'll grant you, even Ted Greene couldn't play that one on guitar, either, as it's a seven-note chord!

Or even 8 notes in the common voicing you mention on C6. Taking C chords as an example, placing the bar at fret 7 on C6, using P6 and P7, strumming the 8 middle strings, you get

which I think every C6 player has discovered on day 1.


What is "fully voiced?" Obviously it depends on context, but this chord sounds fine, and usually better, without the G note:



This voicing is at fret 3 on any E9 that lets you raise string 7 a half step (AB pedals down, 9th string lowered a half step, F# on string 2 or 4). On most 10 string E9 guitars you would have to omit the low C. Low C is there on 12 string E9, or perhaps on 10 string if you can lower string 10 a whole step which some players include on the lever that lowers 9.

On my E9 (12 string) it is easiest at fret 8. I have a "pedal 0" (knee lever on some guitars such as 3+5 push/pull) that raises string 6 a whole step (E to F# at fret 8 giving the raised 11th note.) With the "A pedal" down, the G note is not available on string 10, but an A note is there, doubling the 13th an octave lower, which often sounds nice, and can be strummed across all strings:




In practice, 4 notes are usually enough to convey the flavor of this chord. Somebody else will be playing the root and 3rd, or maybe you just played the root and 3rd, so you can just play:



which is available at many frets on E9. Besides fret 3 and fret 8 as I just mentioned, you can play it at fret 12. I would usually play it at fret 5, since all my guitars have a knee lever to lower string 7.

John RJ Wilson wrote:
My vision is suggesting like I did that somebody could possibly come up with a tuning that lends itself to contemporary music without immediately transporting the novice to Hawaii or Nashville. If it is not possible well that is a pity.

Yes, I agree it is a constant struggle for me not to sound country or Hawaiian. But I think the problem is my hands & brain, not the tuning on the guitar.

Brint Hannay wrote:I'm curious: Has anybody ever worked through the Ted Greene "Chord Chemistry" and/or "Modern Chord Progressions" book, executing everything in there on E9th, or C6th, or E9th and C6th, or some form of 12- or 14-string Universal tuning?

If (as I admit I suspect) no one has, I'd stick my neck out and say I'd wager no one could--all that stuff probably couldn't be executed on any of the above configurations of pedal steel.

But Ted Greene, and a select few others, can execute all that on a six-string standard guitar. The point being, the instrument is capable of it. So where is your "Such-and-such is all you need as a steel guitarist--seek no additional, or different, capabilities" as a matter of Principle then?

Brint, I'm not down on chords, nor am I down on the moving harmonies that only pedal steel can do. What I am sorta down on is the illusion that you need all that stuff to play great music. Sure, you can get a 12 or 14 string guitar, configure it with 10 pedals and 9 levers, and probably play all the fancy chords. But how many players could, in 20 or 30 years, master such a guitar? How many would even have the wherewithal and dedication to attempt it? Look, whether or not you want to admit it, the reason that straight guitar is so popular is that the instrument is simple and standardized. Oh sure, there was a push to add another string or two about 50 years ago, but that (luckily?) didn't catch on. Instead, players found new ways and developed new skills to use what they already had! I think we need the same attitude with pedal steel, because the goal to have all the notes, and all the chords, and all the moving harmonies, and have everything in tune, and then be truly proficient, is an almost insurmountable task. It's my belief that if you develop the instrument to a point where only a dozen or two people in the world can play it exceptionally well, that the popularity which we all seek to come to the instrument, will simply never happen. When you think that the only way to improve or expand what you do is to make changes on your instrument, you're in a zero-sum game. Each additional complexity reduces the number of potential players.

Give a good listen to Emmons playing "Oleo" on the Steel Guitar Jazz album, and remember what he had to work with...and then you might see where I'm coming from.

Re Earnest's response to my assertion that the "fully-voiced 13#11" can't be played on a "3+5 E9th":

For my own satisfaction, I'd like to reply for the record (not that anyone else cares).

First, I was trying to make the semi-academic point that there are indeed some note combinations that the tuning will not permit--I might have known someone would post a refutation, and Earnest would be a likely one. Touché!

However, by "fully-voiced" I meant including all 7 notes that define a 13#11. It's that, in particular, that I was saying couldn't be done. If, as Earnest suggested, the "C13#11" chord sounds fine with the G omitted, that technically would be, as actually played, a 13b5; the designation "#11" is only called for if a fifth is also present.

While Earnest's suggestions are good ones (and be it duly noted that he is a far better musician than I), my comment about the unavailability of the 13#11 chord was meant to apply to a 10-string E9th with 3+5 with what are today very nearly "standard" changes, which would be pedals "A", "B", and "C" and E lowers, E raises, 2 & 9 lowers, "Bb" lowers, and 1 & 2 raises usually with some change on 6 or 7. ( It was my assumption this was what Dave G. meant by "3+5 E9th".) Earnest's solutions (apart from those involving playing only 4 notes of the chord) involve "non-standard" changes. The one using the 7th string 1/2-step raise, for example, presupposes doing that raise while leaving the 1st string unchanged, which the above setup doesn't allow for.

So what, you say? It's a good question.

Donny, I do see where you're coming from, and I basically agree, at least up to a point. And also with everybody else who says the current tunings work well and justifiably have become standard. However, I am one who thinks part of the charm of pedal steel is that it isn't totally standardized, that when one gains familiarity with the instrument, and, it should go without saying, with music itself, one can refine and personalize the instrument itself in service to one's musical thoughts.

That wouldn't be the best approach for a newbie to take,I agree there,too. But I don't think they should be discouraged from looking forward to the possibility that the instrument may have other doors that could open once they've gotten involved in it.

So why would anyone refuse to take advantage of the gift left us by a number of folks who DO have a great familiarity "with music itself" and who have spent lifetimes creating a system that allows for the greatest possible range of musical options? The "personalized" changes many have installed have eliminated a great amount of musical versatility already, in the quest for a "personalized" instrument they have essentially capped the instrument's capability. That they don't understand it in an afternoon - or a year or twenty - does not mean they can or should improve it, in fact it's maybe the best reason to suck it up and study what has already been worked out instead of re-inventing the instrument in their own image, blind spots and all.

Once one is up to speed on what is already there and why, one can add one's own tweaks with intelligence and intent, as most folks eventually do in addition to, rather than in place of, the "standard" changes.

Last word and I'm done here: At least two of the fellows on Mike P.'s list are certifiable geniuses (the others were never tested) and they all spent years playing four and five hours a night, six and seven days a week playing all kinds of music BEFORE they started putting pedals on their guitars. The opportunity to build that kind of chops and explore the possible combinations of various tunings is rare to extinct in today's world, surely any sincere aspirant to the instrument would do well to take advantage of whatever they learned that has been passed along to the rest of us. Just a thought...

deleted

Mike Perlowin wrote:

John RJ Wilson wrote:

My vision is suggesting like I did that somebody could possibly come up with a tuning that lends itself to contemporary music ...

They did. It's called E9. Don't think for a second that the tuning is limited to traditional country music. You heard all the guys on the different styles thread. 90% or more of them play E9.

The E9 tuning was not invented by any one person. It is the result of the collective thinking of Buddy Emmons, Jimmy Day, Jimmy Crawford, Lloyd Green, Pete Drake and others. The used to tinker and experiment, and them to meet every week at Jimmy Crawford's and discuss what they tried. They figured out what works, and what doesn't. Their goal was to make the tuning as versatile as possible, not just for country, but for anything, and they succeeded.

We do not need a new tuning. The E9 tuning is as good for playing rock (and classical music) as it is for playing country. (I think 12 strings are better for both rock and classical music than 10. The extra strings allow you to play bass lines and power chords.)

...without immediately transporting the novice to Hawaii or Nashville.

Well, you know, even a rocket scientist with a degree in quantum physics starts off by learning that 2 and 2 are 4. You have to start somewhere. Traditional music is a good training ground.

John, I have a challenge for you. Get yourself a Stage one or similar entry level pedal steel, and learn to play the Pink Floyd or David Lindley stuff, and then start using pedals to enhance your playing. You'd be amazed at how well the PSG fits in the styles you like.

Mike thanks for the challenge, but I'll have to pass on that, i'm having enough trouble with a six string lap However I am going to a Scottish PSG group meeting in a few weeks. So maybe i'll be allowed to make a fool of mysel there.

Your prelude a l'apres midi d'un faune is brilliant by the way. I heard it played at the Edinburgh Festival a couple of weeks back, and it was yawn, the conductor took it so slow. My son is a classical music degree undergrad BTW,Bass/baritone, this house is no stranger to classical music.

What do you call "contemporary music"?

This could mean a huge variety of styles.

Ulrich Sinn wrote:What do you call "contemporary music"?

This could mean a huge variety of styles.

Contemporary is probably a poor term I have used. Current, of the moment, modern. But yes any of the boxes used from Hip Hop to modern classical, rock metal, atonal, Jazz, Newage etc etc, or to reverse the statement, music in addition to the sphere which has become the pedal Steel stereotype. Or any generation's music that steel has not been used in that might help reverse the decline.

John, a c chord is a c chord, regardless of what instrument it's played on. Once you know how to make your chords and scale patterns, you can apply that knowledge to any style of music.

So, although we live 6,000 miles from each other, if you and I ever find ourselves in the same place, I'll give you a pedal steel lesson.

John, looking back at my posts, I realize that they are unnecessarily harsh, and I apologize for that.

You should know that you are not the first person who has come here and told us that we're doing everything wrong, and although this person was a beginner, he was going to show us all the right way to do it. This included buying the kind of guitar and changing our tunings to the one he liked.

This man ticked off a lot of people and there is still some residual anger and resentment toward him, some of which was directed at you. Please accept my apologies.

Be that as it may, it doesn't change the fact that the established tunings are perfectly suited to play the kind of music you like, and you suggestion that we need new ones is a bad one, based on a lack of experience and knowledge of the possibilities inherent in the instrument.

You have heard both my classical and blues-rock playing. I tell you now that I use a fairly standard version of the E9/B6 tuning. Like everybody else, I have my own personal way of setting it up, but it's actually a very conservative tuning, with just the standard changes.

We both believe that more players need to explore more possibilities. But I say that we already have the necessary tools (pedal changes) for that, and don't need to re-invent the instrument in order to accommodate different types of music.

Hi Mike, no need to apologise, I realise just what you mean. I expected, a lot negative response, and would not have posted if I didn't have the backbone for it.
And none of the responses are any where near what you might call trolling.
However, you have convinced me at least that E9 is a jolly fine tuning, and that it is only limited by the player.
Cheers

John RJ Wilson wrote:Hi Mike, ...you have convinced me at least that E9 is a jolly fine tuning, and that it is only limited by the player.
Cheers

Have I convinced you to try it?

By complete chance I spotted this You Tube video.

Mumford and Sons, are huge in the UK, I do not know how big they are in the US. I do not like them, but they have spawned a whole raft of copycats, and their semi acoustic fusion of folk and soft rock, is very popular.
However this is a jam from the end of their tour and there is a pedal steel on stage, just the exposure that your instrument needs, it will probably end up with lots of views as will any other uploads. Some of these folks might think they might include it in their me too band........

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XkzBdTqKaDc#t=300

Mike Perlowin wrote:

John RJ Wilson wrote:Hi Mike, ...you have convinced me at least that E9 is a jolly fine tuning, and that it is only limited by the player.
Cheers

Have I convinced you to try it?

I have already said I will give it a try at the Scottish group October meeting if I manage to attend. But lapsteel will be enough for me. I am really going to check up on my fledgling technique
and to have my finger picks bent properly, and get a hard time for the finger setup I am having quite good success with which involves, flat pick thumb and forefinger, finger pick on middle and ring finger. Amazing how quickly the strength is building up in the ring finger. Plus I want to try some of the preferred brands of volume pedal.
We will see. The guys will get a laugh if nothing else.