A Bit of History of Jeff Newman’s Tuning Charts
Posted: 19 Dec 2010 10:30 am
I received a letter from Forumite Ron Funk, ordering a couple of those “Emmons' Foremost Glasses” that I had stored in the bowels of my warehouse for 15 years. He happened to ask, “Would you know the evolution of Newman’s tempered tuning, when he first tuned the E’s to 440, then later revised his chart to tune the E’s to 442?” It just so happened that I did know some of that history, but wouldn’t want anyone to think I knew everything about it. Ron and I continued to exchange emails on the subject. We came up with the idea of sharing my recollections here. With a much larger audience on the Forum, I decided to elaborate on the subject, getting more into the Equal Temperament vs. Just Tuning aspects as it related to Jeff’s and my activities of many years ago. But as usual, my thoughts and recollections got completely out of hand and turned into what might be called a short story. So, if you don’t want to get bogged down by my excessive verbiage, just close this topic and go on to something else.
Background:
The Korg WT-10A Tuner: Away back in the ‘70s or early ‘80s I began stocking and selling Korg’s earliest chromatic tuner, the WT-10A. That was when I was playing in dance bands and had a use for one. Someone turned me on to it and said it was a Godsend to steelers who had to tune so many strings, then tune the pitches needed for employing pedals and knee levers. The Korg tuner was supposed to make it a fast work.
So when I got that tuner in my hands, I knew I had to learn how to use it. I spent a lot of time playing with it. I did what I suspect everyone did when they got theirs. I tuned every open string on my guitar to its assigned pitch, then each pitch for every pedal/knee lever change. All were tuned to the zero mark (440), using the VU meter. Wow, what a disaster. The guitar sounded awful. At first I thought the tuner was defective. I put it aside, then re-tuned my steel in the traditional manner: by ear.
Once the steel was back in tune and I was happy with it, I wondered just how “defective” the tuner really was. I compared the readings of my now in-tune strings with what the tuner revealed them to be, and was amazed at how far the needle on the VU meter deviated from the 440 for most every pitch I needed to tune to. I set the tuner aside and took the attitude, “To hell with that thing.”
Fortunately, I thought about the tuner a bit more. I concluded that the tuner didn’t have to be a total loss if I could achieve a good in-tune sound by simply writing down how much the VU needle deviated from the 440 mark for each of those pitch-settings I’d established for my “good” sound. I did that and made a chart. Also somewhere in the mix of it all, I began researching the “Just” tuning (also called Just Intonation). I was a “red-hot” back in those days and now remember that I even went to the library (the Internet wasn’t even a word then) and found information about the Just Intonation scale. I began to understand that I was tuning my steel to the Just Intonation scale. I learned that even Bach had published something about it (see that reference later on). That was when I changed my mind about the tuner’s value. The result was my authoring of a steel player’s “Owner’s Manual” for that tuner. Once written and printed, I supplied one with every Korg tuner I sold. I explained how users of the tuner should make up a tuning chart for their steels. I even provided one as a guide to show how the tuning chart should look and be used. I quickly became the biggest single seller of Korg tuners in the world. Korg told me that when one of their salesmen came to my house to learn why I was ordering so many of them! Boy, did that inflate my ego.
Now, To Jeff and His Charts. Jeff and I were the best of friends and talked by phone often. As many know, I hosted a number of his seminars. Jeff’s wife, Fran, and my wife just loved one another, but loved going shopping even more. They got rid of us by doing so, permitting Jeff and me to talk steel continuously, besides having a cool one out of Buddy’s “Foremost” glasses. …. Just kidding; those glasses came along long after that! But, we still didn’t let that stand in the way of a few cool ones. Ooops, I’m getting off the subject.
When Jeff began publishing his “Pedal Rod” Newsletter, he also printed his recommended tuning chart. As time passed he changed his original recommended string-pitch settings, doing so several times. Eventually he even explained why he chose to recommend tuning his E-strings to 442 Hertz. Jeff did provide an explanation of his 442-Hertz change, but I can’t recall when he did so. It may not have been in his Pedal Rod Newsletter. [If anyone happens to have the article he wrote, would you post it here on this topic thread?] But to continue:
Challenging Jeff: I began to ponder why Jeff kept changing his tuning chart recommendations. I finally figured it out. Jeff was frequently given (or was loaned) a new pedal steel from a manufacturer. I suspected that he would use his original chart to tune each new guitar, only to discover that his established numbers didn’t work for it. When that thought hit me, I viewed myself as a brilliant tactician (yes I suffer from ideas of grandeur). I immediately called him and explained my theory that a different guitar required a different chart in order to sound in tune. He paused for a moment then told me he believed I was right, and that he had thought his hearing was changing because of the aging process (I knew he was kidding, but who wouldn’t blame it on something?). I explained that every guitar was different and that players should make up their own chart for each and every brand of steel they owned. Jeff said he would tell his students that. I don’t know if he ever did. But let’s end that discussion and get back to the 440 vs. 442 matter:
Even though Jeff didn’t tell me this, here is what I believe (because it worked for me!). Even if Jeff got his guitar in tune, he would discover that it still wasn’t quite right when playing with a band. His guitar was still flat of their basic pitch. I believe Jeff went to a 442 Hertz level as the base point for his E strings because of the “problem” of detuning, i.e. cabinet drop. Nearly every pedal steel made at that time (and even many to this day) has cabinet drop and/or de-tunes in their individual ways. Notice that I put the word, ‘problem’, in quotes. Not all de-tuning, or cabinet drop, is a problem. But that is a subject for another time!
As I said, I felt that Jeff wasn’t in tune with the band because his guitar was still "flat" of the band’s overall pitch. I suspect that Jeff calculated the average amount of detuning (caused by cabinet drop) for his pedal steel and settled on it being 2 Hertz (8 cents). Why do I suspect this? Because I did some experimenting back then with a number of guitars myself. I came up with the 2-Hertz average detuning myself. So, I felt Jeff had discovered the same thing I did. My procedure was simple: I depressed the A & B pedals (on an E9th tuning), and watched the needle on the tuner’s VU meter move below the 440 mark. It seemed to most often settle at 438. If I re-tuned the E strings back to 440 while holding those pedals down, when I let off the pedals, the typical rise in the VU meter’s needle would bring it back to 442. I then suspected that Jeff would tune the rest of the strings (while still holding those two pedals down) to be in tune with the 442 pitch. I know I should have phoned him, but I didn’t think it was worth a call at that time. Stupid me! But to continue:
I felt Jeff compensated for an in-tune sound by tuning all the other strings and knee levers changes to be as close to “the good sound” (the Just scale) as possible, when not employing the pedals. For him, it depended on how those knee levers were used in the context of the band’s overall pitch. His compensation, regarding the knee levers, could be referred to as “tempering” those changes, while the rest of his tuning process would be in line with his wanting a “Just” tuning. Once Jeff was done, he would note the variations he got from the 440 mark on his tuner and then would prepare his chart. He shared his chart(s) with his students either at his seminars or via his Pedal Rod newsletter. I suspect that he never published the procedure by which he arrived at those numbers, but I could be wrong. I also believe that if every steel player in the world had learned his procedure away back then, they would now be tuning up quickly and would even have time for a sip from their “Foremost” glasses. [Give it a rest, Tom!]
Tuning Made Simple: Take the time to tune your own guitar by “ear” to be as close as you can to getting an “in tune” sound for your ears. When satisfied, make a chart of your findings and use it to quickly tune your steel. Thereafter, you should be happy by re-tuning it to your chart, even being able to do so without hearing any sounds from your guitar. And also, because most tuners have a lighted VU meter, you can do it in the dark.
If you have to tune to a band or another instrument (and those players don’t want to re-tune to your guitar), determine what their pitch level is and, using your tuner’s meter adjustment, re-tune your guitar by still using your chart. You’re then ready to rock.
A Reality: It is very important for you to “believe” that you’re playing in tune. Let’s face it, once any steel player begins playing, he can only be happy playing if HE believes his sound is an in-tune sound. And, we all compensate for the nuances of our great instrument by moving the bar above or below the fret lines to achieve what we hear as an in-tune sound. Whether we are playing in tune is the opinion of those who listen to us, particularly our band mates. But who gives a rats about them. We are who counts, right?
Be aware however, that if another steel player sits behind and plays your steel, or you play theirs, you both will believe that the others’ guitar is out of tune and will proceed to tweak the tuning. I’ve seen this happen time and time again. It proves that everyone hears differently.
Prior Publishing: As many will recall, I also talked this subject to death in my 1996 catalog, “Steel Guitar”. It was a lengthy article titled “Tuning Tips and Tuners”. In retrospect, I took many pages to explain what could have been reduced to the advice provided in the paragraphs above, under the heading “Tuning Made Simple”.
Jeff and My Comeuppance’s: Once on a visit, Jeff admonished me about something I had written that he disagreed with. As I recall, he was right, so I agreed to cease printing such nonsense or agreed to publish a retraction; I can’t remember now. However, I took that unrelated opportunity to then admonish him for telling everyone to “temper-tune” their guitars (which implied that they were to tune to the Equal Temperament tuning). I explained to him that steel players want the so-called “good” sound, and do so by trying to tune their guitars to a “Just” tuning scale, not an Equal Temperament scale. And incidentally, I define the Just Tuning scale as the one with all the notes and chords blending nicely, and all of those annoying “beats” between harmonizing notes are eliminated. After arguing for a time, I finally convinced Jeff that he, and nearly all other steel players, was actually trying to tune their guitars to a JUST intonation tuning, but didn’t realize what they were doing. [Note: If you think you can live with your guitar being tuned to an Equal Temperament scale, tune each note on it to a piano and see how happy you are with the sound. I predict that you will quickly decide that you can’t live with it sounding that far out of tune!] I later felt good when I heard Jeff tell his students at a seminar, “The Just Tuning method is how most players tune their steels.” However, I don’t know if he ever wrote about it in any publication.
Some Concluding Thoughts and A Summation: I suspect that when we use the word “temper” with “tuning”, we are using it in accordance with a few of its dictionary definitions. Such definitions imply that we are “adjusting” or “altering” a tone pitch to be more in line with what sounds good to our idea of beautiful harmony. Unfortunately, that conflicts with the more prevalent assumption that we are employing the Equal Temperament tuning procedure. What we are actually doing is trying to get our guitar to sound its best. That sound is the Just-Tuned sound, getting as many strings tuned to the Just Intonation and blending beautifully.
So, I’m going to repeat myself, which may make some want to scream: When you say you “Temper Tune”; you are likely tuning every string on your guitar to 440 Hertz with a tuner. With a few exceptions, a piano is "temper tuned", meaning that all its strings are tuned to align themselves to the “440” position on a tuner’s VU meter, a scale with the Hertz levels evenly divided within an octave. For your guitar, the instant that you decide to tune a string flat or sharp of a tuner’s 440 reading, you are moving toward tuning it to a Just Scale and you are “Just Tuning”. I suspect you get it, so humor me and don’t scream now!
I might add that there are some electronic instruments that I've heard of that have the Just Tuning built into it, like some electric pianos. But I know of no fix-tuned instruments that are able to fully accomplish it. That is another reason that the pedal steel is unique in the tuning world.
Other Sources: There are many Internet sites that describe the Tempered and Just Tuning methods. Here’s a couple:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Just_intonation
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equal_temperament
As related, my investigation of the Just Tuning led me to learn about Johan Sebastian Bach’s work and compositions called “The Well Tempered Clavier”. Some of that history can now be accessed at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Well-T ... ded_tuning
There is a YouTube video of Jeff demonstrating his Just Tuning approach on a Korg AT-12 tuner, although I can’t seem to locate it. If readers here can, please post its location.
Lastly, there are many other Internet sites that claim to explain the process of Tempered Tuning of instruments. But while they say they are “tempering” a chord or tuning, what they are really trying to do is achieve the “Just Tuning” sound from their instruments, the sound that is most pleasant to our ears.
If anything I’ve supplied here is not clear or you take exception to what I’ve said regarding the history of Jeff’s tuning charts, please feel free to disagree and scream bloody murder. Then, present your own opinion or knowledge on the subject. And while you’re at it, have a “cool” one on Jeff and me, out of any glass that’s handy. …Tom
P.S.: I wish to extend a hearty “Thank You” to Ron Funk for his contributions and editing of this post.
Background:
The Korg WT-10A Tuner: Away back in the ‘70s or early ‘80s I began stocking and selling Korg’s earliest chromatic tuner, the WT-10A. That was when I was playing in dance bands and had a use for one. Someone turned me on to it and said it was a Godsend to steelers who had to tune so many strings, then tune the pitches needed for employing pedals and knee levers. The Korg tuner was supposed to make it a fast work.
So when I got that tuner in my hands, I knew I had to learn how to use it. I spent a lot of time playing with it. I did what I suspect everyone did when they got theirs. I tuned every open string on my guitar to its assigned pitch, then each pitch for every pedal/knee lever change. All were tuned to the zero mark (440), using the VU meter. Wow, what a disaster. The guitar sounded awful. At first I thought the tuner was defective. I put it aside, then re-tuned my steel in the traditional manner: by ear.
Once the steel was back in tune and I was happy with it, I wondered just how “defective” the tuner really was. I compared the readings of my now in-tune strings with what the tuner revealed them to be, and was amazed at how far the needle on the VU meter deviated from the 440 for most every pitch I needed to tune to. I set the tuner aside and took the attitude, “To hell with that thing.”
Fortunately, I thought about the tuner a bit more. I concluded that the tuner didn’t have to be a total loss if I could achieve a good in-tune sound by simply writing down how much the VU needle deviated from the 440 mark for each of those pitch-settings I’d established for my “good” sound. I did that and made a chart. Also somewhere in the mix of it all, I began researching the “Just” tuning (also called Just Intonation). I was a “red-hot” back in those days and now remember that I even went to the library (the Internet wasn’t even a word then) and found information about the Just Intonation scale. I began to understand that I was tuning my steel to the Just Intonation scale. I learned that even Bach had published something about it (see that reference later on). That was when I changed my mind about the tuner’s value. The result was my authoring of a steel player’s “Owner’s Manual” for that tuner. Once written and printed, I supplied one with every Korg tuner I sold. I explained how users of the tuner should make up a tuning chart for their steels. I even provided one as a guide to show how the tuning chart should look and be used. I quickly became the biggest single seller of Korg tuners in the world. Korg told me that when one of their salesmen came to my house to learn why I was ordering so many of them! Boy, did that inflate my ego.
Now, To Jeff and His Charts. Jeff and I were the best of friends and talked by phone often. As many know, I hosted a number of his seminars. Jeff’s wife, Fran, and my wife just loved one another, but loved going shopping even more. They got rid of us by doing so, permitting Jeff and me to talk steel continuously, besides having a cool one out of Buddy’s “Foremost” glasses. …. Just kidding; those glasses came along long after that! But, we still didn’t let that stand in the way of a few cool ones. Ooops, I’m getting off the subject.
When Jeff began publishing his “Pedal Rod” Newsletter, he also printed his recommended tuning chart. As time passed he changed his original recommended string-pitch settings, doing so several times. Eventually he even explained why he chose to recommend tuning his E-strings to 442 Hertz. Jeff did provide an explanation of his 442-Hertz change, but I can’t recall when he did so. It may not have been in his Pedal Rod Newsletter. [If anyone happens to have the article he wrote, would you post it here on this topic thread?] But to continue:
Challenging Jeff: I began to ponder why Jeff kept changing his tuning chart recommendations. I finally figured it out. Jeff was frequently given (or was loaned) a new pedal steel from a manufacturer. I suspected that he would use his original chart to tune each new guitar, only to discover that his established numbers didn’t work for it. When that thought hit me, I viewed myself as a brilliant tactician (yes I suffer from ideas of grandeur). I immediately called him and explained my theory that a different guitar required a different chart in order to sound in tune. He paused for a moment then told me he believed I was right, and that he had thought his hearing was changing because of the aging process (I knew he was kidding, but who wouldn’t blame it on something?). I explained that every guitar was different and that players should make up their own chart for each and every brand of steel they owned. Jeff said he would tell his students that. I don’t know if he ever did. But let’s end that discussion and get back to the 440 vs. 442 matter:
Even though Jeff didn’t tell me this, here is what I believe (because it worked for me!). Even if Jeff got his guitar in tune, he would discover that it still wasn’t quite right when playing with a band. His guitar was still flat of their basic pitch. I believe Jeff went to a 442 Hertz level as the base point for his E strings because of the “problem” of detuning, i.e. cabinet drop. Nearly every pedal steel made at that time (and even many to this day) has cabinet drop and/or de-tunes in their individual ways. Notice that I put the word, ‘problem’, in quotes. Not all de-tuning, or cabinet drop, is a problem. But that is a subject for another time!
As I said, I felt that Jeff wasn’t in tune with the band because his guitar was still "flat" of the band’s overall pitch. I suspect that Jeff calculated the average amount of detuning (caused by cabinet drop) for his pedal steel and settled on it being 2 Hertz (8 cents). Why do I suspect this? Because I did some experimenting back then with a number of guitars myself. I came up with the 2-Hertz average detuning myself. So, I felt Jeff had discovered the same thing I did. My procedure was simple: I depressed the A & B pedals (on an E9th tuning), and watched the needle on the tuner’s VU meter move below the 440 mark. It seemed to most often settle at 438. If I re-tuned the E strings back to 440 while holding those pedals down, when I let off the pedals, the typical rise in the VU meter’s needle would bring it back to 442. I then suspected that Jeff would tune the rest of the strings (while still holding those two pedals down) to be in tune with the 442 pitch. I know I should have phoned him, but I didn’t think it was worth a call at that time. Stupid me! But to continue:
I felt Jeff compensated for an in-tune sound by tuning all the other strings and knee levers changes to be as close to “the good sound” (the Just scale) as possible, when not employing the pedals. For him, it depended on how those knee levers were used in the context of the band’s overall pitch. His compensation, regarding the knee levers, could be referred to as “tempering” those changes, while the rest of his tuning process would be in line with his wanting a “Just” tuning. Once Jeff was done, he would note the variations he got from the 440 mark on his tuner and then would prepare his chart. He shared his chart(s) with his students either at his seminars or via his Pedal Rod newsletter. I suspect that he never published the procedure by which he arrived at those numbers, but I could be wrong. I also believe that if every steel player in the world had learned his procedure away back then, they would now be tuning up quickly and would even have time for a sip from their “Foremost” glasses. [Give it a rest, Tom!]
Tuning Made Simple: Take the time to tune your own guitar by “ear” to be as close as you can to getting an “in tune” sound for your ears. When satisfied, make a chart of your findings and use it to quickly tune your steel. Thereafter, you should be happy by re-tuning it to your chart, even being able to do so without hearing any sounds from your guitar. And also, because most tuners have a lighted VU meter, you can do it in the dark.
If you have to tune to a band or another instrument (and those players don’t want to re-tune to your guitar), determine what their pitch level is and, using your tuner’s meter adjustment, re-tune your guitar by still using your chart. You’re then ready to rock.
A Reality: It is very important for you to “believe” that you’re playing in tune. Let’s face it, once any steel player begins playing, he can only be happy playing if HE believes his sound is an in-tune sound. And, we all compensate for the nuances of our great instrument by moving the bar above or below the fret lines to achieve what we hear as an in-tune sound. Whether we are playing in tune is the opinion of those who listen to us, particularly our band mates. But who gives a rats about them. We are who counts, right?
Be aware however, that if another steel player sits behind and plays your steel, or you play theirs, you both will believe that the others’ guitar is out of tune and will proceed to tweak the tuning. I’ve seen this happen time and time again. It proves that everyone hears differently.
Prior Publishing: As many will recall, I also talked this subject to death in my 1996 catalog, “Steel Guitar”. It was a lengthy article titled “Tuning Tips and Tuners”. In retrospect, I took many pages to explain what could have been reduced to the advice provided in the paragraphs above, under the heading “Tuning Made Simple”.
Jeff and My Comeuppance’s: Once on a visit, Jeff admonished me about something I had written that he disagreed with. As I recall, he was right, so I agreed to cease printing such nonsense or agreed to publish a retraction; I can’t remember now. However, I took that unrelated opportunity to then admonish him for telling everyone to “temper-tune” their guitars (which implied that they were to tune to the Equal Temperament tuning). I explained to him that steel players want the so-called “good” sound, and do so by trying to tune their guitars to a “Just” tuning scale, not an Equal Temperament scale. And incidentally, I define the Just Tuning scale as the one with all the notes and chords blending nicely, and all of those annoying “beats” between harmonizing notes are eliminated. After arguing for a time, I finally convinced Jeff that he, and nearly all other steel players, was actually trying to tune their guitars to a JUST intonation tuning, but didn’t realize what they were doing. [Note: If you think you can live with your guitar being tuned to an Equal Temperament scale, tune each note on it to a piano and see how happy you are with the sound. I predict that you will quickly decide that you can’t live with it sounding that far out of tune!] I later felt good when I heard Jeff tell his students at a seminar, “The Just Tuning method is how most players tune their steels.” However, I don’t know if he ever wrote about it in any publication.
Some Concluding Thoughts and A Summation: I suspect that when we use the word “temper” with “tuning”, we are using it in accordance with a few of its dictionary definitions. Such definitions imply that we are “adjusting” or “altering” a tone pitch to be more in line with what sounds good to our idea of beautiful harmony. Unfortunately, that conflicts with the more prevalent assumption that we are employing the Equal Temperament tuning procedure. What we are actually doing is trying to get our guitar to sound its best. That sound is the Just-Tuned sound, getting as many strings tuned to the Just Intonation and blending beautifully.
So, I’m going to repeat myself, which may make some want to scream: When you say you “Temper Tune”; you are likely tuning every string on your guitar to 440 Hertz with a tuner. With a few exceptions, a piano is "temper tuned", meaning that all its strings are tuned to align themselves to the “440” position on a tuner’s VU meter, a scale with the Hertz levels evenly divided within an octave. For your guitar, the instant that you decide to tune a string flat or sharp of a tuner’s 440 reading, you are moving toward tuning it to a Just Scale and you are “Just Tuning”. I suspect you get it, so humor me and don’t scream now!
I might add that there are some electronic instruments that I've heard of that have the Just Tuning built into it, like some electric pianos. But I know of no fix-tuned instruments that are able to fully accomplish it. That is another reason that the pedal steel is unique in the tuning world.
Other Sources: There are many Internet sites that describe the Tempered and Just Tuning methods. Here’s a couple:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Just_intonation
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equal_temperament
As related, my investigation of the Just Tuning led me to learn about Johan Sebastian Bach’s work and compositions called “The Well Tempered Clavier”. Some of that history can now be accessed at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Well-T ... ded_tuning
There is a YouTube video of Jeff demonstrating his Just Tuning approach on a Korg AT-12 tuner, although I can’t seem to locate it. If readers here can, please post its location.
Lastly, there are many other Internet sites that claim to explain the process of Tempered Tuning of instruments. But while they say they are “tempering” a chord or tuning, what they are really trying to do is achieve the “Just Tuning” sound from their instruments, the sound that is most pleasant to our ears.
If anything I’ve supplied here is not clear or you take exception to what I’ve said regarding the history of Jeff’s tuning charts, please feel free to disagree and scream bloody murder. Then, present your own opinion or knowledge on the subject. And while you’re at it, have a “cool” one on Jeff and me, out of any glass that’s handy. …Tom
P.S.: I wish to extend a hearty “Thank You” to Ron Funk for his contributions and editing of this post.
