The Steel Guitar Forum

There is a lot on tuning and temperament on the forum.
Here's what I noticed in Buddy's shift in tuning, was that in the early eighties Buddy was on board with Jeff Newman's method of tuning, with a lot of notes tuned slightly flat.
I think this is nice when tuning a guitar "to itself" and playing solo or with a trio.
I think it was the early 90's when Buddy told me that, while he was playing along with the radio, it made him change his tuning thinking to tuning everything to A 440 and making minor adjustments from there.
Maybe a slight flattening of the thirds and maybe the E>F knee lever.

Chris, I seen Buddy at Scotty's in 1994. He was at his table, but nobody was around. They were taking a break on the stage, people were out eating, and he was standing there, looking like he was hoping someone would come up a buy something. I took the cue went over and bought a couple of cd's and some tab, we then got into a conversation about is favorite steel, and his tuning preference. He did mention that he was at that time tuning everything 440-which is what I started doing too. Also mentioned that I would have to do some minor adjustments as I hear them. Funny to is when he asked me what I was using on the C6-a high G or a chromatic D. I told him high G. He raised is eyebrows and affirmatively-almost ordering me to go home and replace the G with the chromatic D. He said something to the effect that it would lead to better single single voicings. I basically said 'yes sir' got home and changed to D-which I still have today and use it all the time. Also at the time he told me is favorite sounding guitar was a 67 Emmons pp that he had used.

Duane, thanks for sharing your experience with the Master. There are two ways of tuning a steel.

1. Tune "straight up" in ET and flatten the notes that sound iffy.

2. Tune in natural intervals (JI) and sharpen the notes that sound iffy.

Either method works and achieves the same result. Now that I have pointed this out, there will be no more tuning discussions on this forum, ever.

The top D string brings in a debate into the tuning subject. But not unconnected because the pesky D works with MANY if not most of the pedaled and levered chord combinations... UNLESS of course, as it stays put... there are JI conflicts resulting.

As posted in a lengthy thread just weeks ago on the PEDAL Steel Forum, while being a JI defensor at heart, but after playing standard guitar for the last almost 20 years of my steel guitar sabbatical, and having thrown E9th outta the window now, I have come to tune ET (call it "straight up", "all 440"... let's say "to the tuner").
I still would NOT do it on E9th as the playing style is also different. Less big 5-note inherently dissonant chords, more 2-note harmonies floated up and down the neck, generally in heavily JI-affected 3rd and 6ths, a few perfect 4ths/5ths here and there. Except for the E-to-F lever, fairly navegable in JI.
I think I now have a couple of weeks of playing a rather loaded C6th setup tuned as strictly as mechanically possible to ET. I do NOT adjust the M3rds at all. I LOVE it. Can't do Jerry Byrd on it (his playing was more centered on harmonies in 3rd and 6ths, not unlike the later E9th), but I can play any musically possible pedal and knee lever combinations and also find my hammer-on notes where one expects them to be.

I once stated I would NEVER go anything else but JI... so, even being a slow learner, I now know better than to now state here I would never go back to JI on C6th. But given the playing style I am currently shooting for, I feel pretty certain.

I was wondering if someone had a first hand account on Buddy Emmons' take and thus appreciate Duane Becker's testimony on his encounter with BE.
BE's statement (even briefly here on this Forum in the late 90's) left many in disbelieve. I discussed it with Maurice Anderson once and he could NOT believe it ("I would have to see that on HIS guitar to believe it")

BE had GREAT intonation and seemed to have been very conscious about it seemed to have been a musical perfectionist. I think one evidently CAN learn to handle each harmony string pair with the appropriate bar-hand tuning alteration to make them "clean" up... DID he do that, I don't know. Most of what most people have heard BE play, was studio work and his convention appearances which were always impecable and surrounded by ET instruments (guitar, piano (to a larger degree almost ET)). So, if you sound in TUNE with the BAND or orchestration, it will be very difficult to tell if ONE instrumentalist has "beats" in his harmonies or not, as long the beats don't stem from being in a clash with the orchestration.
While I don't remember he ever gave a clear reasoning of "WHY", I suspect one could theorize that he sought to be in as perfect tune with the orchestration.

A few years back I was immersed in the world of Big Bands. While I always loved Big Bands, I didn't have a clue of what was going on. I quickly learned that these guys HAD do be able to read written music as most were playing single note instruments and would have to play their pin-pointed role in each Big Fat Big Band Chord. To my amazement I learned that for certain chords they each also have to find their "sweet" spot. And then, there are chord where you have so many intervals in 3rds but leading up to different degrees in the chord, where the arranger or conductor would have a choice of who goes where with each's note. I watched them practice and EXPERIMENT.
At the Baked Potato right behind Hollywood, CA (IF you visit LA, you HAVE to visit that club!!)... a minuscule but iconic Jazz-Club, I found my self packed up in there with a movie sound track Big Band. I had two trombones pretty much right in my face and was prepared for this turn out to become just a loooong evening blasted by two horns.
Actually, nothing of that occurred. They played so softly! But what had me amazed...they would do all these complex upper structure/triads over bass chord sequences (Maurice Anderson was famous for understanding how to used them on the steel)... it seemed the band "floated" an inch over the floor... and the intonation was almost "still". FULL of dissonant structures... and yet "still"... no perceived beats, nothing. Clean as Crystal.



Fact is:
PHYSICS gives us JI (naturally occurring harmonics (aka. overtones) result of strings vibrating in fractions of their lengths) which clash with the same base notes of certain ET-tuned notes due to a slight difference.

Math pleads with us to use ET.
All our Fretboards are lined out in Equal Increments => ET

In other words.... just like the "English"-Horsemen (and women) get on a saddle looking to the back of the horse and "American"-style-Horemen (and Gals) do it looking to the front... there are several truths and more ways to skin a cat.

... J-D.

I assume that Duane's conversation with BE was in the context of E9.

I see a lot of sense in going JI on the E9 and ET on the C6. Only snag for me is I play a uni. I favour the sonority of JI and when I come across a chord that doesn't quite work, I find a way round it. Luckily there are enough different ways of doing things on this beast.

Ian Rae wrote:I assume that Duane's conversation with BE was in the context of E9.

I see a lot of sense in going JI on the E9 and ET on the C6. Only snag for me is I play a uni. I favour the sonority of JI and when I come across a chord that doesn't quite work, I find a way round it. Luckily there are enough different ways of doing things on this beast.

And THAT was what now also got me out of my other "I will never, blah blah" thing too.
I left the universal concept because of tuning issues. Yeah, I had lost interest in E9th, but I tried to make it B6->limited E9 (no C nor E-to-F pedal) "Universal"... but was battling tuning issues, so little by little, my B6th got more changes to the cost of E9th and finally it had gone and I tuned up from B to C. Which I might backtrack upon because the second last string being E on B6th tracks like a standard guitar's root (chord location based on that root string... or "tracker" as Maurice called them).
AND MAYBE because I wanted to concentrate more on C6th with more complex changes. Which doesn't mean that I still find that on a Universal you will always have at least the possibilities BE had on his C6th on a fairly standard Universal, ONCE the player understands that the "E9th changes" are part the B6th arsenal.


... J-D.

Sitting in a bar. late night, with Buddy..a player came up and started asking all kinds of these(tuning) questions. Without changing expression, he told the guy (as he put it), 'just enough to get him thinking'. 'Course it was funny to us,(Crawford was there) but, it was just early enough for me(in experience) to corner him later(in the elevator) to ask. He roared laughing!...I told him I tuned 'straight up' and he said, 'well, you're one helluva lot closer than he is'! I told him I didn't have a problem, and he told me if it sounds in...it is! He also said, and get this people, START at straight up, and guage from there. This goes to all players that say, different guitar, different touch, different attack, feel, power, ad nauseam. What I found from this was I needed to attack fatter(lower) strings the same as thin...been in tune on records ever since.

Jeff did you used to play in Massachusetts?
It was at Johnny D's in Somerville, in the John Penny, Peggy Green, Donny Dion, Bobby Stanton, George ? (had a cool, unique guitar) , Blue Star days that you really impressed me, if that's you.

Jeff Peterson wrote:Sitting in a bar. late night, with Buddy..a player came up and started asking all kinds of these(tuning) questions. Without changing expression, he told the guy (as he put it), 'just enough to get him thinking'. 'Course it was funny to us,(Crawford was there) but, it was just early enough for me(in experience) to corner him later(in the elevator) to ask. He roared laughing!...I told him I tuned 'straight up' and he said, 'well, you're one helluva lot closer than he is'! I told him I didn't have a problem, and he told me if it sounds in...it is! He also said, and get this people, START at straight up, and guage from there. This goes to all players that say, different guitar, different touch, different attack, feel, power, ad nauseam. What I found from this was I needed to attack fatter(lower) strings the same as thin...been in tune on records ever since.

VERY interesting story, Jeff! Thanks for sharing.

... J-D.

Jeff and I were both playing around the Boston area in the early ‘70’s. I moved to Colorado the first of February ‘76 and he moved to Texas the next week. Good times back then for sure.

I have a lot of trouble understanding the dichotomy of opinions on this subject. Many very experienced players when asked will say the people who tune straight up are just out of tune period. The people who tune straight up generally don't say the opposite for the straight up players. I really can't understand how there can be two so dissimilar opinions with to my knowledge no way to resolve the impasse.

Darrell Criswell wrote:I have a lot of trouble understanding the dichotomy of opinions on this subject. Many very experienced players when asked will say the people who tune straight up are just out of tune period. The people who tune straight up generally don't say the opposite for the straight up players. I really can't understand how there can be two so dissimilar opinions with to my knowledge no way to resolve the impasse.

Let me put it to you like this - Which is a better car, a Honda Civic or a Ford Mustang GT? They both get you from "A" to "B", don't they? People have different reasons and expectations that lead them to making certain choices. And for the tuning methods and for the cars, it's the same. Never the twain shall meet. For me, it comes down to this simple choice: Do I want to sound "acceptable" all the time (ET, or any variation of it). Or, do I want to sound "perfect" some, or most of the time (JI).

That's your two choices.

Darrell Criswell wrote:I have a lot of trouble understanding the dichotomy of opinions on this subject. Many very experienced players when asked will say the people who tune straight up are just out of tune period. The people who tune straight up generally don't say the opposite for the straight up players. I really can't understand how there can be two so dissimilar opinions with to my knowledge no way to resolve the impasse.

When you tune JI... some degrees (Major 3d intervals) of your chord will be considerably flat and some will be slightly sharp (minor 3rds). This by itself can be a problem with more complex chords...Eg: a 6th degree will want to be pushed away 5 cents from the root. What do you do? Set the 6th degree back closer to the 5th or push the root closer to the Major 3rd (an interval that asks to be narrowed anyway?

A good JI player knowing his intervals will try to ear-home adjust with the bar position, and pressure into the mix of what's around him, which will mostly have tuned to ET with a fair amount of "out of tune" themselves.
An ET player may have his "deck" (across the strings) fairly in tune and will also still have to listen and adjust to make good for mechanical detuning (bar pressure affecting intonation as he moves into the middle of the neck, body drop detuning and the fact that everybody else, except a the electronic instruments are having tuning issues.

There are steel guitar students which will NEVER sound in tune (just check out youtube), and some that get intonation fairly quickly.

So, both "schools" and maybe even everything in between can work, if you know how to make it work and it works for you.

What I really found to be surprising, was when I guy like Emmons, which was always known for great intonation comes out 30 years into his career and switches from one methodology over to another.

It's an interesting subject with never ending considerations.
There was a time most of us didn't know much about it, and had fights over opinions and believes and mostly ill fated "theories" about it.
We've come a long way since, mostly understanding that perfection in tuning is actually impossible.


... J-D.

...perfection in tuning is actually impossible.

Amen.

Acceptable tuning...or not? (You be the judge.)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ehYU78M8hyg

Donny Hinson wrote:Acceptable tuning...or not? (You be the judge.)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ehYU78M8hyg

I have a hard time with his tuning or how his tuning sounds on the sadly often poor quality recordings (or records having suffered with time). His playing was often very "risqué" not to say near "experimental", which complicates things. He had at times more pedals than strings and boy did he have many strings! So I suppose there may have been tuning & setup conflicts. I remember Bobbe Seymore did quite aloud not seem to think too highly of Sierra guitars up until they came out with the Crown and later Session models, which in my opinion had sound mechanics (actually the Crown with more solid stops than the later Session) and I feel could handle a fairly advanced tuning and setup.

I never met JT in person, never had the pleasure of hearing him play life in person, so it's difficult to tell.

Maybe there were more technical issues than we like to remember with complicated setups on guitars of that era. Lets not forget, in those years, most played double necks with 3&4 on E9th and 5&2 on C6th.

It was also a time when some experimented and came up with very complicated setups, Maurice with his Universal combining both mainstream tunings in one, Curly using a very complicated setup on his Jazz tuning, JT and Vance Terry, I believe Al Perkins baffling everyone with double rows of pedals etc. It is an era from which we have records with apparently at times questionable tunings or setups yielding what was thought to be "impossible" but with some compromises.
Push Pulls had positive stops AT the changer... but no splits until long after they weren't produced anymore. Solid setups but with combination limitations. I could not imagine my setup without clean cut tunable splits. And BE laid down the Steel Guitar Jazz Album in '63 on what some suspected to have been one of the very first PP Emmons guitars ever built with a fairly basic setup. Yet, the album was cut on a ShoBud which at the time still had very basic mechanics. Still, BE managed give us a true Jazz and Bebop album which to me is as profound as Miles' iconic "Kind'a Blue" album, even when he felt it would not hold water against the Jazz and Bebop icons he looked up to. The recording quality and over all production is so pure and oozes NYC Jazz and BE delivered in his usual cool "on the money".

... I'm swaying off subject, I realize.

... J-D.


.

J D Sauser wrote:

Donny Hinson wrote:Acceptable tuning...or not? (You be the judge.)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ehYU78M8hyg

I have a hard time with his tuning or how his tuning sounds on the sadly often poor quality recordings (or records having suffered with time). His playing was often very "risqué" not to say near "experimental", which complicates things. He had at times more pedals than strings and boy did he have many strings! So I suppose there may have been tuning & setup conflicts. I remember Bobbe Seymore did quite aloud not seem to think too highly of Sierra guitars up until they came out with the Crown and later Session models, which in my opinion had sound mechanics (actually the Crown with more solid stops than the later Session) and I feel could handle a fairly advanced tuning and setup.

I never met JT in person, never had the pleasure of hearing him play life in person, so it's difficult to tell.

Maybe there were more technical issues than we like to remember with complicated setups on guitars of that era. Lets not forget, in those years, most played double necks with 3&4 on E9th and 5&2 on C6th.

It was also a time when some experimented and came up with very complicated setups, Maurice with his Universal combining both mainstream tunings in one, Curly using a very complicated setup on his Jazz tuning, JT and Vance Terry, I believe Al Perkins baffling everyone with double rows of pedals etc. It is an era from which we have records with apparently at times questionable tunings or setups yielding what was thought to be "impossible" but with some compromises.
Push Pulls had positive stops AT the changer... but no splits until long after they weren't produced anymore. Solid setups but with combination limitations. I could not imagine my setup without clean cut tunable splits. And BE laid down the Steel Guitar Jazz Album in '63 on what some suspected to have been one of the very first PP Emmons guitars ever built with a fairly basic setup. Yet, the album was cut on a ShoBud which at the time still had very basic mechanics. Still, BE managed give us a true Jazz and Bebop album which to me is as profound as Miles' iconic "Kind'a Blue" album, even when he felt it would not hold water against the Jazz and Bebop icons he looked up to. The recording quality and over all production is so pure and oozes NYC Jazz and BE delivered in his usual cool "on the money".

... I'm swaying off subject, I realize.

... J-D.


.

Just a note, Al Perkins was the west coast guy who I believe still plays Dobro a lot in Nashville. He's not the dual pedals, federal pen for interstate fraud guy. That was Al Petty.

I was lucky enough to hear Julian in person, but the recording speaks for itself. While I really appreciated Julian's talent, ability, and imagination, I could never get past the pitchy-ness of what he played. In truth, most all of that was likely due to his complex guitars and complicated setups. The more you add to the complexity of a system, the more room there is for error, and the more possibilities (in our case) for unharmonious results. I have several of Julian's albums, and while his single string technique is formidable and harmonious, the sound of many of his chords (especially on the slower numbers) grates on my senses, like fingernails on a chalkboard.

But as far as tuning, we know by all the different methods various players employ that there are many routes to sounding in-tune when we play. Which is why being in-tune and playing in-tune are two different things, entirely. And this is why I preach that tuning and playing in-tune is not just a thing we do to match some meter or device. It's not a mathematical equation that can be solved by computation or technical wizardry. It's a skill that must be learned and honed constantly and over time, a skill involving our ears.

In short, it's learned by listening, not by looking.

Dustin Rhodes wrote:
Just a note, Al Perkins was the west coast guy who I believe still plays Dobro a lot in Nashville. He's not the dual pedals, federal pen for interstate fraud guy. That was Al Petty.

Al PETTY of course! Thanks Dustin!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=koDHlg1PwLc

at 21:48 using "11 of 14 pedals"...




... J-D.

J D Sauser wrote:

Dustin Rhodes wrote:
Just a note, Al Perkins was the west coast guy who I believe still plays Dobro a lot in Nashville. He's not the dual pedals, federal pen for interstate fraud guy. That was Al Petty.

Al PETTY of course! Thanks Dustin!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=koDHlg1PwLc

at 21:48 using "11 of 14 pedals"...




... J-D.

And for my money I'm taking Perkins smoking his old E7 cable pull fender with the Burrito bros any day over the dual pedal dog and pony show.

Dustin Rhodes wrote:
And for my money I'm taking Perkins smoking his old E7 cable pull fender with the Burrito bros any day over the dual pedal dog and pony show.

Ha!
I just read up the forum threads on Al PETTY's fall of grace. There are still also some websites reporting on his legal case. I had all but forgotten about it. It was quite a "debate" here on the forum, since Al Petty mad a faith based claim.

Yeah, he played up from the late 50's Hillbilly and traditional country and then got into that double row thing seemingly wanting to become a one-man band.
I looked at above video, and it's sometimes "interesting" and sometimes painful to watch. PSG has a "visual" problem anyways.. but when a player seems to have contortions, it looses any sex appeal it ever MAY have had.

I always thought that a heel-pedal (and some did that) would allow for otherwise impossible combinations... but it never caught on. And then, you listen to Jerry Byrd, Maurice going from an S12 Universal to a S12 non-pedal, Tom Morrell and go "oh well, must not have "everything"!".

Likewise, Al Perkins was indeed an amazing and individualist player who made his stand with what we would today regard as a very rudimentary instrument.

... J-D

J D Sauser wrote:

Dustin Rhodes wrote:
And for my money I'm taking Perkins smoking his old E7 cable pull fender with the Burrito bros any day over the dual pedal dog and pony show.

Ha!
I just read up the forum threads on Al PETTY's fall of grace. There are still also some websites reporting on his legal case. I had all but forgotten about it. It was quite a "debate" here on the forum, since Al Petty mad a faith based claim.

Yeah, he played up from the late 50's Hillbilly and traditional country and then got into that double row thing seemingly wanting to become a one-man band.
I looked at above video, and it's sometimes "interesting" and sometimes painful to watch. PSG has a "visual" problem anyways.. but when a player seems to have contortions, it looses any sex appeal it ever MAY have had.

I always thought that a heel-pedal (and some did that) would allow for otherwise impossible combinations... but it never caught on. And then, you listen to Jerry Byrd, Maurice going from an S12 Universal to a S12 non-pedal, Tom Morrell and go "oh well, must not have "everything"!".

Likewise, Al Perkins was indeed an amazing and individualist player who made his stand with what we would today regard as a very rudimentary instrument.

... J-D

I'm a gearhead and fight with my own tendency towards "more is more" so something like Petty's set up appeals to that side of me and the mechanical designer in me. But from the music side I hear Morrell and such and think they could do more with less and with that in minds Petty's steel seems more of a novelty.