The Steel Guitar Forum

Together Again, If you play Steel you most likely have played Together Again. Just finished watching You Tube Steel Convention 1994 Tom Brumley playing Together Again then watching Paul Franklin with Vince Gill on Marty Staurt
Show.All the front slants,back slants etc.,do nothing to make the song as good as the original by Tom B. Some songs
and styles of playing can not be improved on. Just my
humble opinion.

Agree.

I agree completely.
The original (on any song) has the feel of the player and no matter how hard we try, we cannot duplicate that.

Not taking anything away from people that copy or even add their own style, but the original is just that, the original.

Kind of like a restored old car. Nice, but NOT the original and there is a definite difference.

Yes, but Tom being my teacher when I first started I asked him about that phrasing on together again. He said: "Ricky, I was playing a pedal steel that only had two pedals that worked proper, knee levers didn't work, so I hear what I want the notes to do so I have to figure out how to get them to do that with my bar and what I have that works to get there."
He says it's all about hearing what you want to hear and being able to do it. When I hear Paul Franklin play, I hear he is hearing what he wants the notes to do, and he's able to play what he hears, and Tom would be so proud to hear what Paul plays to hear.
Ricky

I agree with all above. My good music friend and I have a duo with our own background music and are just now working up a rendition of Together Again. He sent me of course the Paul Franklin version for a sample and being a student of Paul's course I am going to use the one long bar slant move but will keep the rest of the song as best I can sound like the original. Lol the original licks have been imprinted in my mind for many years! Tom's version of Bud's Bounce and Steel Guitar Rag are the reason I started playing in the first place.

Tom Brumley wrote:Ricky, I was playing a pedal steel that only had two pedals that worked proper, knee levers didn't work...

There were no knee levers on that guitar, a Fender 1000, but he still did a fine job. Too many players think they need lots of pedals and levers to play good stuff. But in reality, all those levers and pedals don't impress anyone but another steelplayer. It's not "what you have", it's how well you play!

Yeah Donny; he may of said: "and no knee levers to work"; that was indeed 40 years ago, were my first lessons with Tom(my nextdoor neighbor).
Ricky

Tom and Paul are both musicians expressing themselves playing music. A listener listening with the intention of judgement is doing something else.

Bob Hoffnar wrote:Tom and Paul are both musicians expressing themselves playing music. A listener listening with the intention of judgement is doing something else.

Bob you have a point, but Tom's version emits feeling, while Paul's, even though it's good has more of a "Hold My beer and watch this", feel. It has too many steel guitar acrobatics. I was really excited to get that album of Vince and Paul's but after listening just once I never have again. The production sounds like it was done on two cassette recorders in Vince's basement and everything is overplayed. Just my opinion.

I am not in judgement of any one's style,as I stated it is just my opinion I do agree with Donny. Steelers are always looking for and trying different approches to music but to an average listener you could play all night on A nd B pedals and E to D# knee and they would not know the difference. As far as liking or not I never heard Buddy Emmons do anything that I didn't like. Again these are only my opinions after 70 years of playing and observing.

Tom,
You are an amazing player ! I've had the pleasure of watching you play several times back when Bill Lawrence was having his get togethers. I would love to hear what you would do with Together Again.

Bob

Bob Hoffnar wrote:Tom and Paul are both musicians expressing themselves playing music. A listener listening with the intention of judgement is doing something else.

And...what would that be?

I have to agree with Craig.. Missing melody and tone for me.. Played it once!

What always blew me away about Tom was the roundness of his tone, no matter what guitar he played. Randy Beavers has that touch too. Tone is almost like a clarinet on the single notes. Damn!!

Donny Hinson wrote:

Bob Hoffnar wrote:Tom and Paul are both musicians expressing themselves playing music. A listener listening with the intention of judgement is doing something else.

And...what would that be?

Judging and NOT creating. Bob may have meant something else but that’s what I got from it.

I would never attempt to compare Tom's playing on the original version of Together Again with the way Paul plays it now. We're talking about two of the greatest players to ever put a bar to strings. I can sit and listen to these, back to back, for hours - and have - the emotional content of either is tremendous. I really don't hear any 'showing off' on either version - I hear all technique carefully exploited for maximum emotional impact. That's what makes great playing, to me. But hey - different people may respond to the different versions differently. What a concept!

To the more general point of how to handle playing a classic song like this - to closely copy or come up with something significantly different. Well, to me, there's almost no way to really exactly copy the subtle aspects of technique and feel. One can copy the notes and the licks but there's an intangible sense about a really great version of a song that will always rest with the original version. So to me, that sort of pushes in the direction of trying to make one's own personal statement. Of course, that invites comparison with the original - but as I said in my first sentence, I don't see the point of comparison. But then again, I've always hated trying to rank order art. To me, it's impossible and thus pointless. It's not a sport that can be measured like a 100-yard dash.

I don't eschew comparisons, I relish them. They give me insight into how I think, as well as how other people think; an inner view of their psyche, as it were. They also give evidence of peoples' overall knowledge, and even their physical faculties. Like it or not, we all do mental comparisons, but some people are just not as open with their opinions. (Our world is infected with PC.) As the old saying goes, "Everything's a competition", and it's hard to argue the truth of that. When me make comparisons in the arts, it becomes more difficult to set guidelines because everything's not cut and dried, and some characteristics can't be precisely quantified. There's a style quotient as well as an ability quotient evident in any work of art. And, truth be told, there is often (always?) a varying amount of mixing of the two. Some people are impressed most by outright ability or technical execution, while others are more impressed by style or sound. It can also be said that developing and perfecting a unique style is it's own sort of ability, so there's a lot of combining going on. And of course, it's largely subjective as to what's "best".

In the end, as far as comparisons, it's all good to me because it's all insight and information. For instance, I know there are people out there that think that Jerry Garcia was a better pedal steel player than Buddy Emmons. Those sort of comments or opinions no longer bother me like they used to. After all, everyone's entitled to their opinion. But can we discuss that sort of thing here without getting into a big argument? Probably not (but most of us know the answer).

Each steel player interprets what and how he hears a tune differently. There was only one time in my 50 years of this instrument that someone fooled me into believing it was Buddy Emmons on the recording and he wasn't. So long ago my memory can not recall the player.

As the old saying goes, "Everything's a competition", and it's hard to argue the truth of that.

Um ... respectfully, I'll argue the truth of that. I assume we're discussing some type of 'merit' in art - of course, one can quantify commercial factors like records sold, money made, and so on. But I assume that's not what we're talking about here.

As you point out, there's no clear way to stratify and quantify various aspects of art. No matter how we set it up, people will never agree to the terms and resulting premises. Therefore, any comparison becomes subjective, and there is therefore no way to objectively judge the competition. At that point, everything is a matter of personal preference. I acknowledged clearly that people are going to feel differently about different approaches, but there's no way to objectively compare them. To me, this renders the concept of 'competition' based on the merits pretty much useless.

I'll tell you straight that I have often heard music that I just didn't get at first, but then over time I grew to understand better and appreciate. I think this is very common amongst both musicians and people in general. So I think the process of making judgments about music, and I think art in general, is fraught with fairly insoluble problems.

Hey, I can't stop anybody from making it a competition, and some will insist on doing this. But I think, in the end, that type of judgment ultimately rests on popularity and commercial success, which again is not what I think we're talking about here.

And sorry - I try to be polite - but I don't think anybody that knows me well would ever call me PC!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HSQC9UNQRoI
Jeff Newman's masterpiece production!!!
Bob Browning on vox. Jerry Fessenden told me he still performs these days. I can't remember where he said.

Dave Mudgett wrote:

As the old saying goes, "Everything's a competition", and it's hard to argue the truth of that.

Um ... respectfully, I'll argue the truth of that. I assume we're discussing some type of 'merit' in art - of course, one can quantify commercial factors like records sold, money made, and so on. But I assume that's not what we're talking about here.

"I like them (this, that, him, her, whatever) better" It can be a song, a singer, a band, a guitar, an amp, what to have for dinner, who to marry, or even an idea or philosophy. We all make choices and judgements on subjective things, Dave, choices based upon knowledge and observation, past experience, hearsay evidence, personal priorities, or even random chance. The fact that we even make choices means there were different things "competing" for our attention. And the choices we make are statements that reveal not only what we like, but how we think!

Like it or not, competition and subjective comparisons and judgements are everywhere, in everything we do. You can try to avoid them, you can deny them, or ignore them. But they're there! Be they on the poker table, the playing field, the bandstand, the art gallery, the restaurant, or even in class or at the senior prom.

So tell me, Dave, what's your favorite guitar...and why?

I’m going to go out on a PC limb and agree with much of what both Dave M. and Donny are supposedly disagreeing about. Not only is “everything a competition”, but “everyone’s a critic”. Whether someone bases their criticism on actual knowledge and understanding or on just the vague notion of “knowing what I like” is virtually immaterial when it comes to music. And who is right? Does your mom like Yanni, or Stravinsky? Who is the expert on that?

Just to rat on my own fickle self, the female vocalist in a band I was in wanted to sing a Madonna song. Well...I hated Madonna. But after playing some of her music, which wasn’t all the tasteless schlock I presumed it to be, I realized one of the main reasons I hated her was merely because she was hugely popular, while the music I loved languished in relative obscurity. It cured my priggy presumptuousness, even if I still like my obscure heroes better.

And I like Paul Franklin’s solo better.

So tell me, Dave, what's your favorite guitar...and why?

In terms of personal stuff like music, art, or practically anything that involves my personal likes and dislikes, I honestly can't tell you what my favorite anything is. I'm absolutely serious. I know of no way to rank order anything personal because there truly is no absolute way to measure that kind of stuff. I am totally content to say, qualitatively, "I like this.", or "I don't like that.". And all that changes from day to day, month to month, and year to year. No doubt, this is why I have a lot of guitars, amps, and a handful of other things that are important to me. I get 'em, use 'em, and make changes as I go. Until they drop me in the ground, everything is always a work in progress to me.

Rank ordering and competition are games that people play. It's fine to play the game, but not always necessary, and there are plenty of people that don't take that game all that seriously. To me, competition is good when it spurs me to greater things. But competition can also be destructive when taken to extremes. There are sometimes consequences to not paying attention to this, but I've generally been able to go through life pretty well without worrying much about it. I do what I do, and let the chips fall where they may. If I'm competing with anybody, I'm competing with myself. Especially at this point in my life.

Of course, we make decisions. In order to function in the world, we have to make choices - we can't have or do everything. That doesn't mean we even always make good choices that are necessarily consonant with what we actually prefer. Add to this that there is often insufficient information to make good choices, much less 'optimal' choices. There is no absolute - there are always pragmatic considerations. I guess this is the engineer in me speaking. To me, optimization is a mathematical operation, period. Reality is frequently much different. Even engineering reality - you compute an optimum, but that all depends on your assumptions being correct. To borrow from Howard Rosenbrock's article, "Good, Bad, or Optimal", IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, 1971 - picking what seems to be the 'best' option can lead to physically unrealizable or poor results.

Steve Earle wrote:I wish I were as sure about anything as Bill Monroe was about everything.

which actually goes back at least to this quote from William Lamb, 2nd Viscount Melbourne about 19th Century British politician Thomas Macaulay:

I wish I was as cocksure of anything as Tom Macaulay is of everything.