The Steel Guitar Forum

Where it it written that the sole purpose of the steel guitar is to accompany singers? There was was thread here recently about a steel guitar club whose meeting was overrun with vocalists who thought that their singing was the way for a steel player to showcase his/her abilities. Because after all, they are the true artists. We are merely their servants.

And we have gone along with this because 1- the general public does not know the difference between poetry and music. 2- it's easier to play licks and fills that it is to play instrumentals, and 3-we can make a few bucks.

I say nuts to that. We all know that the steel can so so much more. We've all heard great players including many members of our forum who have made wonderful instrumental recordings. Many of us have attended steel guitar shows where the performers played instrumentals.

So why is it that these CDs are only marketed to other steel players? Why do so few of us do restaurant gigs? Why don't any of our great jazz steelers play at jazz festivals?

Personally, I will never play behind a singer again, as long as I live. I consider myself to be an artist in my own right and not subservient to some guy who can only sing and strum a few guitar chords. From now on, I will only play instrumentals. My days of accompanying singers are over.

Well - I get your point about the stereotyping of steel guitar, and especially pedal steel guitar. And of course we all should play in whatever situation that moves us, for whatever reasons that make sense to us.

Personally, I play music to serve whatever music I'm playing. If that means playing a some type of leading melody on a guitar, steel guitar, banjo or whatever instrument (that I can play) I think works for the music, fine. If that means keeping rhhythm, fine. If that means filling behind a singer, fine. If that means playing some type of harmony or counterpoint to augment what some other player is playing, fine.

Beyond that, again for me, sometimes the issue is that I'm playing purely for my own enjoyment. But sometimes I play what someone else wants - I don't think it's a bad thing to be a servant of someone else's vision, as long as there is some type of equity, or maybe consideration is a better word, in the exchange of interests. These are broad terms, there are many ways to get something of value out of playing music. If I didn't think that, I probably wouldn't play music - most musicians sure as hell aren't getting rich from this.

Even beyond all of that, I would honestly be bored if all I ever heard was music where steel guitar was always the main thing, front-and-center. I think there's a role for steel guitar in most any situation, but also a role for guitar, voice, or pretty much any instrument played by other people who are interested in serving the music.

I personally think steel guitar is remarkably well-suited for vocal accompaniment, owing to its own vocal and emotional quality. I think that role is basically what brought especially the pedal steel to prominence, which is probably why it is often stereotyped that way. It's certainly what brought me to the instrument. By all means, it's great that some people do things to blow up stereotypes. But I wouldn't personally want to avoid what I consider to be a great role for the instrument simply because other people have a stereotyped vision of it. I don't really care what other people think about it, except to the extent that those opinions can sometimes limits the potential for public performance.

To me, instrumental music frequently has a higher bar in terms of compositional quality to overcome the lack of voice. For example, I never get bored by a good blues singer singing a very simple blues that I would never think about playing strictly instrumentally. I don't know exactly why that is, but it's true for me.

But to each his/her own. I sometimes hear similar comments from bass players and drumers who resent the restrictions often placed on them and want to expand the role of their instruments beyond the stereotyped harmonic and/or rhythmic role for which they are most often used. I guess it's a matter of what you want and also what type of audience you can build for that. But I confess that I usually get bored pretty quick at long bass or drum solos, which often seem narcissistic, to me at least. But if they can make that work for them, fine.

I'm sure there are a lot of singers out there that won't miss you.

Really Graham? I would really love to see how many fans would stay all the way through an A Capella concert by their favorite singer. Musicians have willingly adapted this "we don't exist" attitude with singers and not receiving the credit they are due. This forum is replete with that attitude. Musicians work just as hard to perfect their craft as the singers do and should receive just as much credit, but they do not. PSG players are the least recognized and from the TV shows I have watched, the camera is off on someone else when the PSG player takes the break.

I am with Mike, let them sing A Capella, and see how long that lasts.

DG Whitley wrote: ...Musicians have willingly adapted this "we don't exist" attitude with singers and not receiving the credit they are due. This forum is replete with that attitude. Musicians work just as hard to perfect their craft as the singers do and should receive just as much credit, but they do not.

That about says it all.

Random thoughts:

Musicians used to be featured in most all situations, but that trend kinda died out in the '60s. All you'd have to do is go back over 50 years, and you'd find that instrumentals were a big part of pop music. There were always instrumentals on the pop charts, and people loved them. Then, in the '60s, there started this trend towards just vocals. Of course, I think the Beatles and other rock groups fomented this change to a big extent, a change towards a kind of dumbed-down music, music that just about anyone could make. You see, to be an accomplished instrumentalist (a good one), required years of study and practice. But just about anyone and everyone could sing a little and bang away on a guitar...and so they did. The singers, often with little real skills and only rudimentary backing, became first and foremost in the public eye. I guess people could just relate better to simpler music created by more "average" people. Big bands, and the reserved and polished singers that some of them had, simply went out of fashion. Likewise, the myriad small instrumental groups in pop music disappeared, too.

Music wasn't the only art form to experience this dumbing-down and movement towards simplicity, though. It permeated most all of the art world. Classical drawing, painting, and sculpture grew less popular, and they were largely supplanted by more simplistic, abstract, and comic forms - and far earlier than the '60s. You no longer had to study anatomy, musculature, and fashion to "make it" in the art world. You could draw a rubber-hose mouse and get rich and famous. Or, you could paint blocks and lines, or paint splotches on a canvas, and easily convince people it had "expression, movement, and meaning. (Some people look at Jackson Pollock's drip works, and see wonderful "art". I just see painters' tarps.) Lastly, you no longer had to learn to sculpt proper people or animals. You could make weird and simple things that didn't resemble anything in particular, like Henry Moore's sculptures, and have them called "Modern Art".

Change is inevitable. And so, it seems, is vanity, which is probably the cause of all of this. This is certainly the "me" generation. Where do we go from here? Who knows. Art continually moves and changes, that's about all we can say.

Everybody wants to be a singer but almost no one wants to invest thousands of dollars and years of practice to play and instrument anymore.

Music wasn't the only art form to experience this dumbing-down and movement towards simplicity, though. It permeated most all of the art world. Classical drawing, painting, and sculpture grew less popular, and they were largely supplanted by more simplistic, abstract, and comic forms - and far earlier than the '60s. You no longer had to study anatomy, musculature, and fashion to "make it" in the art world. You could draw a rubber-hose mouse and get rich and famous. Or, you could paint blocks and lines, or paint splotches on a canvas, and easily convince people it had "expression, movement, and meaning. (Some people look at Jackson Pollock's drip works, and see wonderful "art". I just see painters' tarps.) Lastly, you no longer had to learn to sculpt proper people or animals. You could make weird and simple things that didn't resemble anything in particular, like Henry Moore's sculptures, and have them called "Modern Art".

Graham wrote:I'm sure there are a lot of singers out there that won't miss you.

This is undoubtedly true. They are far too self absorbed to care about me. Or you.

Donnie Hinson you nailed it.
b.

[quote="Barry Blackwood]
[/quote]

You guys are way too angry

h

Mike I like how you expressed yourself. Like you said more instrumentals!!!

That being said , you must have had a recent bad experience. (I'm on your side Mike)

Howard Parker wrote:You guys are way too angry

Not really anger, for me anyway. It's more like melancholy. I do miss the orchestration with real instruments. Nowadays, most stuff features layered keyboards impersonating (if not exactly) lots of other instruments. So we as steelplayers aren't the only ones who have been supplanted by this vocal monopoly, along with wailing guitars and synthesized/compressed sounds. Used to be that you'd see rock groups with a string of brass instruments, but that mostly gone, too. Indeed, rock instrumentation in the '50s often had sax as the main lead instrument. But guitars and amps improved, as did the guitar players, and now many groups have fantastic lead and keyboard players...who don't do instrumentals either. The musicians in featured groups are mostly far better than they used to be, with chops out the ying-yang, but they're still not often featured playing instrumentals. I miss that, because there's a time when I want to pay attention to lyrics and singers, and a time that I just want to just get "lost in the music". I'm sure I'm not alone in that, but I'm also sure that I'm in a minority that continues to grow smaller.

Nowadays, it seems the "voice" reigns supreme as far as public music tastes goes. Pity.

Mike, as one who prefers to play instrumentals, I can certainly appreciate your viewpoint. Having said that, if I could turn back the hands of time and do a tour with either Linda Ronstadt or Emmylou Harris, I would jump at the chance to be a part of either of their bands. As steel players, we can appreciate the small nuances of fills and turnarounds, even pads that are just so "right" and so well-placed that they send us over the top and, even if no one else thinks about them consciously, they are affected by them. Personally, I feel really good when my parts enhance a (great) song and a (great) singer and make everything sound better. Of course, I'd still keep up a parallel track of instrumental music on other occasions.

For me, it's all about the event and the situation.

Steel clubs are an opportunity for players to present the things they have learned and like to play outside the gig, stage show etc. It's a time for the steel guitar to rule the spotlight and for the player to call the shots on what happens. A great showcase for instrumental music from whatever camp he chooses or to share lead and backup duties if he chooses to call up a singer. A time to be appreciated by other steel guitar players and/or steel guitar enthusiasts who "get it".

Jamborees, gigs, stage shows are a different animal. This time is about the band: the singers, the intros, the t/a's, the solos and endings. A time to interact as an equal member with other musicians.

It's difficult for people to separate and see the differences sometimes.

In my own experience, I love sitting in with the vocal bands and just doing my part as a band member.

I also love putting together a program of the things I like and choose to do in my special spot in a steel guitar show.

How I approach it depends on the event I'm doing at the time. F.I., if I want do play a little rock and blues, big band, light jazz, or standards in a steel show I don't defer to anyone else, I'm the boss whether it's Benny, Benson, Buck, Bach or Bachman Turner Overdrive. I get together with my peeps and rehearse the show as a concert.

If I'm going up on the hill to jam, then I know to expect mostly a menu of country standards, could be some really good singers and musicians or maybe some really bad ones.

I don't like going to steel guitar shows and just seeing them empty the seats of every wannabe singer there. Some of these can be pretty bad even though they've been at it for decades but still retain the same bad habits. They're never going to get better.
I hate playing with singers that think "meter" is something you put money in or "time" is something you do in prison.
Regardless, that's not what I go to hear or expect.

On the other hand, I wouldn't expect to go to your average Saturday night jamboree and expect to see a program of concentrated steel guitar instrumentals.


At ea., usually I see some of my good friends. Some are very good singers and/or musicians...some aren't, but I just wouldn't say things that would hurt their feelings maliciously.

But when I try to describe to them what I just stated above, many of them still don't "get it."

They think I'm being rude. They just don't understand that I'm differentiating between the events as to what is or is not appropriate.

I appreciate your position Mike and support you in it as well. For me, it would be lacking to only have instrumental music and not be able to interact with a good vocalist and the poetry of well written tunes at the appropriate events.

That's my little rant, I guess. I hope I have stated it clearly.

Fred Rushing wrote:you must have had a recent bad experience.

Well, not recently, but when I was gigging on country bands I never got to play any instrumentals. At the time one of the songs I wanted to play was Can't Take My Eyes Off You. When I mentioned it, the singers acted like I wanted them to amputate their penises.

I suppose I am a little angry about that, but mainly I want to play instrumental music, where the focus of the audience's attention is on the steel (and me,) and not on a singer.

I must admit, if Willie Nelson or John Fogerty wanted to hire me, I'd take the gig.

Mike,

I think you may be overestimating the popularity of ANY type of instrumental music.

Putting classical aside, since it has it's own niche, jazz gigs that don't include vocalists are getting harder and harder to book, and other than functions, most any other purely instrumental music is a tough sell.

So, choose to do what's in your heart, but don't expect to get gigs........unless you create and promote them yourself (ala' Susan Alcorn).

Me? In this way, I'm lucky. Not only do I sing, but I prefer to back up an excellent vocalist. Heck, I married one!

Jim Fogarty wrote:Mike,

Putting classical aside...

Well, that's what I do. Check out the stuff on the web pages in my signature.

My upcoming concert is in a classical music facility that has weekly concerts that cater to the Mozart/Beethoven community. Most of the people who attend these have never seen or heard a steel guitar before, aside from my previous performances there.

http://bb.steelguitarforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=309878

Paul Franklin walks up to Vince Gill and says ………………

There is no one who appreciates steel guitar and respects steel guitar players more than Vince Gill. He also appears to be a very modest and unassuming individual. He would come to the ST. Louis Convention steel shows and sit down in the audience and listen until dumb people wouldn't stop bugging him for autographs and such.

If someone wanted him to sing on their set, he would. Otherwise, he seemed to be happy to sit and listen to the great steel players with the rest of us.

The difference, you see, is that it was about the event and situation and professionalism. It was about Paul Franklin or John Hughey at this time and place, not Vince Gill. That's the thing people can't seem to distinguish.

I wouldn't be surprised if he couldn't sit down and smoke players off their own steel guitar either.

Vince was a real musician long before he became a star. Pretty sure that helps.

Mike, The greatest living female opera singer Diana Damaru just called asking if I could back her up at Radio City for her new show "steel opera" I have a scout meeting that night so I gave her your number,sorry

To put that better musicians theory to test. Book a large stadium with only two acts. The Rolling Stones start first and The Boston Pops play an hour later giving plenty of time for the Pops fans to show up. Count the heads at each performance.
It's obvious to see the higher educated musicians have the smallest audience. I used Boston Pops because they are very popular in their field but no match for the Stones. A local orchestra would have faired much worst znd they spent a lifetime studying their craft. I operate like a plumber. I charge $100.00 an hour (not a night) for gigs or sessions plus so many cents a mile and if a singer wants me to strike one chord on every song I ask "Hour many hours would you like." After the session or gig I go home and work on my instrumemtals because they don't pay much. Pretty simple. They can place me wherever they like on the talent chart.

David Mitchell wrote:To put that better musicians theory to test. Book a large stadium with only two acts. The Rolling Stones start first and The Boston Pops play an hour later giving plenty of time for the Pops fans to show up. Count the heads at each performance.

Who says the Pops are "better musicians" than the Stones?? Keith, Charlie, Ron and even Mick have spent a lifetime studying their craft as well. That's not to mention instrumental virtuosos like Daryl Jones and Chuck Leavell in the band.

Sure, the Pops guys may be able to read fly shit off a piece of paper........but can they write "Wild Horses", nail a riff like "Brown Sugar"convincingly or come even close to groove like Charlie's on "Start Me Up"?

Better? Meh.

Nobody says Steel guitars are relegated to support a singer or a specific style of music. No more than a keyboard or a guitar is. IF we are playing in a band with OTHER musicians and other instruments, it's not about us, (singular). We are part of a unit , the performance of the unit is the sum of all the parts. IF we get to play a solo, great, if we don't well, thats the way it is.If we get to play an Instrumental, great, if we don't well again thats the way it is. IF we want to play a solo and/or an Instrumental, work it out with the band before the gigs , if the band is not in favor of it, move on to another band. Not all bands are equal .

Regarding instrumental song choices, if we are playing in a Country Band, be realistic, play a well known song from that genre, pick a song that you know will fit as well as a song folks will dance to, like a quality 3/4. Select songs that fit not just the venue but the band and it's members. Sorry Mike, if I were to call a Frankie Valli song at the dances I play the band would look at me sideways as well. Nice songs, but not necessarily correct for the venue and band.

If we are angry that Steel guitars are popular in Country Music bands and we want to play something different than Country , we are in the wrong band. If we accept a gig, we accept it under the terms of the invite, we do not have the right to alter it because we want to play other styles of music with the same band. Accept it, or move on. IF we accept the gig, it is our charge to do the very best we can, each gig, play our best, look our best, even if that means we play NO SOLO'S or NO INSTRUMENTALS. Even if it means the entire bands premise is to back up the singer.

Like many here, I played for decades where the only Instrumentals called were Steel Guitar Rag or Sleepwalk, not because the band loved them or I loved them, because the AUDIENCE loved them. I could have quit but to what end ? I still play them both now and then.

Today I play in 3 different bands, two of them I am required to play at least two Instrumentals, maybe three. One band we do NOT play Instrumentals but we play tons of licks between Steel and Telecaster. I bring a totally different bag of tricks to the gig. Two gigs I can fill nicely, lay back play traditional signature phrases , the other gig I had better be ready to play Folsom at break neck speed or maybe 2 or 3 extended solos to W Man Blues.

Regarding Instrumentals for a Country based gig , there are enough classy songs to select from to show your abilities which the band can play and audience will easily recognize. If you don't thinks so, just go look at the Ray Price catalog of songs , one catalog of many.

If you don't want to play in a country band, don't. But if you accept the gig , you forfeit the right to complain that you are only playing country music. And yeh, you may have to alter your style of playing to fit the band and the set list. Thats what we do in bands. Thats what musicians do.

Ok, comparing POPS and the Stones..uhh..really ?

How about Gene Autry and Sinatra ?

Ernest Tubb and Michael Buble ?

And by the way, not to rain on the parade , gigs are not ever about me but I certainly get more recognition than I deserve from not just the band members, but audience members as well .

Recognition doesn't come when you ask for it, it comes when you least expect it or if you don't expect it at all.

It's all just silly season