The Steel Guitar Forum

As many of you know, Buddy Emmons set the PSG world on fire when he split Bud Isaac's lone pedal (E to A) into the A and B pedals.

One of the first licks that was used after Buddy did this was as follows:

He is going from a V7 chord to a 1 chord. Example:

key of A

1. Bar at the 7th fret.

2. Pick strings 5 and 6 with A and B down.

3. Slide down two frets and let off the A pedal.

4. Then as the strings sustain, let off the B pedal.

This lick which just about every steel player I know of uses all the time, bothered me for a long time.

"what do you mean bothered you?"

Ok, being trained by a Julliard "Ole mama lion", she drilled and grilled into my head many things about musical theory. And one of the things she taught was; if you can only play two notes in a 7th chord, the notes must be the 3rd and 7th tones of that chord.

So, what bothered me was, "WHY that lick sounded so dang good?". Since it clearly violated a music rule I had learned years earlier. I would listen and analyze for years trying to figure out how come a 2 note chord using the 1st and 7th tones of a V7 chord sounded sooooooooo seventheee to my ears.

My first thought was that some other member in the band was adding the 3rd tone and my ears were still "in tune" with my musical theory. But then I noticed it sounded JUST as good to me if I played it alone without any accompanyment.

I am still not sure why it sounds like a great V7 chord even though it does not have the third note in there, UNLESS it is the sustain from the two notes that are picked at the 5th fret which are still retintively in my ear; that is causing my ears to perceive that lick to sound sooo much like a full seventh chord.

Comments greatfully accepted.

carl

Don't think of it as a Chord. Think of it as a harmonized phrase.

Carl,

To my ear it works because the dissonance ot the tri tone interval resoving inward is replaced with the dissonance of the major 2nd interval resolving outward. In the first case you have the leading tone moving upward 1/2 step to the tonic and in the other case you the suspended tone dropping 1/2 step to the 3rd of the tonic chord.

Bob

I guess it works to my ear because I don't have any musical theory training to mess it up. If something sounds right to me, it seems fair to use it.

First, your ear is remembering the third from the pedals down position. Your ear hasn't heard a change away from the V chord yet.

Also, the third is part of the harmonic overtone series of the root tone, so it's still there in the overtones. The third is also present in the overtone series of the dom7 note (though it's faint), and that helps to bring it out, too.

Frankly, this movement doesn't sound all that great to me unless Lloyd Green is the one playing it.

------------------
<font size="1"><img align=right src="http://b0b.com/Hotb0b.gif" width="96 height="96">Bobby Lee - email: quasar@b0b.com - gigs - CDs, Open Hearts
Sierra Session 12 (E9), Williams 400X (Emaj9, D6), Sierra Olympic 12 (C6add9),
Sierra Laptop 8 (D13), Fender Stringmaster (E13, A6),
Roland Handsonic, Line 6 Variax</font>

I knew a steeler during the early 50's in Southern Louisiana that played a Gibson Electraharp (?)...the single 8 string with 4 or 5 pedals on left front leg...no knee levers as I recall.

It was his belief (and others)that the listener should never actually hear the changes...but, rather should be unaware that a "change" was made. When "Slowly" came out, suddenly he was squeezing those changes and complaining about all that he had missed. By then, all of us 'T-8' guys were catching up with him, fast.

We learn as we go.

bUd


<FONT SIZE=1 COLOR="#8e236b"><p align=CENTER>[This message was edited by Bud Harger on 22 September 2003 at 05:13 PM.]</p></FONT><FONT SIZE=1 COLOR="#8e236b"><p align=CENTER>[This message was edited by Bud Harger on 22 September 2003 at 07:24 PM.]</p></FONT><FONT SIZE=1 COLOR="#8e236b"><p align=CENTER>[This message was edited by Bud Harger on 22 September 2003 at 07:27 PM.]</p></FONT>

<SMALL>Gibson Auotharp (?)</SMALL>

Bud, that would have been a Gibson Electraharp.

Deleted!<FONT SIZE=1 COLOR="#8e236b"><p align=CENTER>[This message was edited by Mike Sweeney on 25 September 2003 at 06:51 AM.]</p></FONT>

Carl,
Certainly the teacher is right in saying that the 3rd and the 7th note of the chords are the definitive tones. But I'm sure that the teacher meant only in terms of the supporting harmony/chord progressions of the song. It's not reasonable to think that each and every harmony played in any tune must be the 3rd and 7th note, otherwise you'd have to kick out half of the harmony that is played and sung in all sorts of music. The concept that makes that particular lick as well as a lot of steel harmony work is called "voice-leading". This has strong support stemming from classical music theory. It's basic principle is that harmony and melody/harmony should be played in such a way that the movements of the notes from passage-to-passage or chord-to-chord should be in small increments. Harmony notes can move in opposite direction, parallel, or one held stationary and the other moves, but the key is that the increments from one note to the next are zero or small. It's also the reason that that great Emmons lick you always talk about of splitting one note into two notes works. That's the concept - note movements should be zero or small. It's used often in steel-playing because of the affinity of the tunings to allowing some notes to be moved in one direction while others can be held stationary or moved in the other direction. With that being said, certain voice-led harmonies are more effective than others and effectiveness translates to tension and resolution properties of the notes of the harmony. The example you gave has strong tension and resolution properties but it's the voice-leading that sets it up. Without the voice-leading, it would not be nearly as effective.

------------------
Jeff's Jazz
<FONT SIZE=1 COLOR="#8e236b"><p align=CENTER>[This message was edited by Jeff Lampert on 22 September 2003 at 06:41 PM.]</p></FONT>

Buddy nor Jimmy knew what they were doing. I've never paid any attention to any of their inovations. <FONT SIZE=1 COLOR="#8e236b"><p align=CENTER>[This message was edited by Bob Knight on 22 September 2003 at 07:24 PM.]</p></FONT>

Jim Cohen,

Yes, that's it. I edited my post. Thanks for the input.

bUd

Hey Carl -

==========
if you can only play two notes in a 7th chord, the notes must be the 3rd and 7th tones of that chord.
==========


Doesn't that lick have all the needed pitches?

E-G# (1st & 3rd of E7) tells your ear it's E

D-F# (7th and 9th of E7) tells your ear it's not just E7, it's E9

D-E (7th & 1st of E7) this major second used this way sounds very seventh-y all by itself

C#-A (3rd and 1st fo A) resolves to A

With those notes and that voice leading, that lick has everything that even the stuffiest classical harmony textbook would say it needs (and more: the F#) to just scream out we are leaving a seventh chord and heading to the I.

It's so strong that if you played it in the wrong place and then frowned at the bass player, people would believe HE made a mistake!
<FONT SIZE=1 COLOR="#8e236b"><p align=CENTER>[This message was edited by Bill Monk on 24 September 2003 at 12:06 PM.]</p></FONT>

"When BE Split The Pedals"..........
How soon we forgot Jimmy Day

------------------------------------------

Mike,

Is it your understanding that Jimmy is the player who originally split the pedals?

carl

OOps! Deleted
Mike<FONT SIZE=1 COLOR="#8e236b"><p align=CENTER>[This message was edited by Mike Sweeney on 24 September 2003 at 06:08 PM.]</p></FONT><FONT SIZE=1 COLOR="#8e236b"><p align=CENTER>[This message was edited by Mike Sweeney on 25 September 2003 at 06:50 AM.]</p></FONT>

Thank you Mike,

Since I won't debate it, I will only say that IF what you say is true, it shatters everything I have been told and "knew" to be true for almost 40 yrs.

It was my understanding that Buddy came up with it, and was telling JD about it on the phone and then Jimmy not realizing how Buddy had split the pedals, split them opposite to what Buddy did.

In essence, I never knew that JD had anyting to do with the creation of it; else I would have given him equal credit for it. I stand corrected if my understanding is incorrect.

Thanks again,

carl

Carl, I believe you are correct about Buddy being the originator of the split pedal arrangement. He did tell Jimmy on the phone, but didn't tell him which pedal did which, thereby the A/B - B/A dichotomy between the two pioneering players.

------------------
Herb's Steel Guitar Pages
Texas Steel Guitar Association

Carl, You may tell the split pedal story as often as you wish from this day forward, with no grief and no remorse, for it is exactly as you said.

I agree with whomever said 2 notes are an interval not a chord. I believe it takes 3 notes to define a chord....or so I've always been led to believe, and of course there can be more than 3 notes. 2 notes can
"harmonize" with more than one chord, in other words doesn't it take more than 2 notes to positively define a particular chord?

I know it's a different way of looking at it, but unless you're playing solo, you do have the harmonic input of the rest of the band to count on too. I wouldn't worry about making it "mandatory" to include the 3rd and 7th in dominant chords.
String bands tend to duplicate alot of notes.
-John

Sorry<FONT SIZE=1 COLOR="#8e236b"><p align=CENTER>[This message was edited by Richard Sinkler on 26 September 2003 at 07:13 AM.]</p></FONT>

<SMALL>It doesn't really matter who split it first</SMALL>

I certainly wouldn't presume to know how Buddy feels about this, but as a general point about human nature, most people that invent or accomplish something like to have credit for it. It's part of the person's legacy and is not something that most people are willing to give up. Again, this is human nature.

<SMALL>doesn't it take more than 2 notes to positively define a particular chord?</SMALL>

The fact is, to "positively" define a chord takes ALL the notes of a chord. If anything is missing, the chord would be ambiguous from a strictly theoretical viewpoint (for example, even leaving out the 5th tone, which is often pointed out as being an unnecessary note, is potentially ambiguous from a theoretical viewpoint because how does one know that the 5th shouldn't be flatted or augmented if no 5th is played at all!?) HOWEVER, the theoretical defintion of a chord is relatively unimportant. What always matters is the context. This includes what the other instruments are playing, how you choose to voice your notes, the key of the song, the chords preceding and following the given chord, the style of the song, expectations of the audience, how inside or outside one chooses to play, and so on. All these things to some lesser or greater extent affect the choices a player makes when playing a combination of notes. There is no absolute rule that says you must play anything, including the 3rd and 7th, or anything else for that matter. What matters is understanding the role of the 3rd, 7th, or 5th, in as many contexts as possibile, so that it can be applied in some reasonable, musical, effective way if one chooses to do so, or left out for the same reasons.

------------------
Jeff's Jazz

<SMALL>It doesn't really matter who split it first</SMALL>

Now that I recall, it's usually the drummer that splits first.

------------------
Herb's Steel Guitar Pages
Texas Steel Guitar Association

I rest my case :



------------------
My best,
Ernie

www.buddyemmons.com

Jeff, you're right about the who split it irst comment in my first post. To the person who split it first, it does matter. I will delete it.

Now the stories I heard are that Buddy and Jimmy both the split the pedals without the other knowing about it at about the same time without the other knowing about it at first. This was the reason that they both split it differently.

This story may be incorrect, but it's what I heard several times over the years. I would love Buddy or someone to set me straight if this is wrong.

<SMALL>I would love Buddy or someone to set me straight if this is wrong.</SMALL>

Read Buddy's confirmation of Carl Dixon's explanation in this very thread.