A quote from here.

Do you think pedal steel guitarists could be happy too?

Terry

EJL

[This message was edited by Eric West on 21 July 2005 at 08:53 PM.]

Even with a regular guitar, for simple chord progressions with no key modulations (or with modulations using bar chords), it is possible to get the most common chords in any single key almost pure. But you have to retune one or two strings slightly to play another song in another key. This is in fact what many guitarists do, rather than play everything ET.

It is simply not as clear a choice as that writer would have one believe. You can't retune a piano between songs, but zillions of guitar players do it all the time. What the writer is saying is that if you train yourself to enjoy your guitar even though it is out of tune, then you wont mind that it is out of tune. Kind of circular. Neverthelees, to have the maximum flexibility in chord changes, ET is a necessary evil, and some guitar players and steelers learn to live with it for that reason, the same as piano players and harpists.

Finally, if you want to tune ET, it is not necessary to use the complicated harmonics the writer wants you to memorize. Just get a six-note guitar tuner, or a chromatic tuner for steel. They are all ET. It may be nice to know the theory and practice of using harmonics to tune ET, but these days it would be like using a manual typewriter rather than a computer, or cranking your car with a hand crank instead of an electric starter.

[This message was edited by David Doggett on 21 July 2005 at 09:29 PM.]

With all due respect to my honorable colleague, Mr. Doggett [this place sounds like the senate at times... "... my good friend from across the aisle, Mr. Bullmoose...."]: it is my understanding that from previous threads it has been established that there are two schools of tuning, with some of us trying to find the narrow ground in the aisle, using tampered intervals. [As in politics, moderates and centrists are hard to find, as they cannot find the haven of a particular dogma to which to cleave.]

Therefore, I must find that this assessment is a little pedantic. I have learned that there is nothing 'the same' about steelers vis. pianists and harpists, who do not find the equal temperament a necessary evil. It is merely the temperament of the particular instrument.

The method set forth on the standard guitar is good; I myself compare top string 3rd fret with the G string, and 2nd string 3rd fret with the D string. It works, as I'm not a perfectionist, and I don't play 2 chord songs. It is, simply, in tune. I don't have to learn to live with it. I just play it, in any key.

Therefore, your particular temperament, for your particular instrument (not all steels are the same, as with pianos) can be said to be in tune. The personal temperament of the tuner or musician is involved as well; thus the word 'temperament'.

If this 'necessary evil' idea is true, 'splain me this: I was tuning for a rock concert, and due to the late soundcheck, I was left tuning the infamous Yamaha CP-70, stage front, as the crowd was coming in, while Honky Tonk Women was playing loud over the house system. The tuning came out the best rock tuning I had done. While using, out of necessity (and hardly an evil one), the guidelines of setting an equal temperament, I may have been influenced by the just intonation of this rudimentary, but successful, two-chord song. How could that be possible, to achieve harmony from two different systems of tuning?

I rest my case. Two methods, and they can coexist happily, bringing remunerative rewards to both parties, and a feeling of brotherhood between me and the Rolling Stones guitar techs.

Then they play only C A or E based chords?

I've also played with Portland's best and worst and haven't met one yet that tuned any other way. Not even one in 25-35 years.

It would make it easier to explain your doomed theory of being able to to it on the PSG, as in aiding pushing a smaller ball of it uphill, but it is to no avail, in either case for me, though you've come the closest.

Incrimentalism is only stopped by ascertaining the incriment, and disallowing it.

EJL

PS. What does the "American Luthiers' Guild" know anyway...

All the other stuff is just mental masturbation.

------------------
Larry Bell - email: larry@larrybell.org - gigs - Home Page
2003 Fessenden S/D-12 8x8, 1969 Emmons S-12 6x6, 1971 Dobro, Standel and Peavey Amps

As the writer in the above link says or implies, it is the "pure" (JI) intonation that our ears naturally prefer, and the ET method will sound slightly off at first. He says one has to learn to like ET tuning. If you've already learned to like ET, as Eric says he has, then the writer is not talking about you, nor am I trying to tell you what your ears like. We are talking about the general situation, not the ears of anyone in particular. This has been my own experience, and seems to be the opinion throughout the theoretical and historical literature on tuning.

Because the natural harmonics sound so much better to most ears, there was resistance to ET and other tempered tunings when they were developed. But they were eventually accepted as necessary evils for fixed pitch instruments such as keyboards and harps. The natural JI harmonics simply have fewer beats and sound better in general. ET is a compromised tuning. That's what the word "tempered" means. The notes are tempered away from pure JI. The further away you get, the worse they sound together.

The old terminology has become confusing. Originally JI was the standard, and the other tuning systems started there and tempered things away from JI as necessary to play many chords in any key. With today's electronic meters, the meter gives one an equal tempered tuning. It is automatically already tempered. To get back to JI, one has to "detemper" away from the meter. Many people have that backwards. They think the meter is perfect, and if you change anything away from the meter you are tempering. Wrong. It is a musical, theoretical, physical fact that JI beatless tuning is pure and perfect. ET is intentionally tempered to a certain tolerable degree of imperfection. It makes all the chords equally slightly imperfect, rather than having some of them perfect and others wildly imperfect. I think the writer and I agree on that. When he uses the phrase "perfect ET," he does not mean perfect in sense of harmonically pure JI, he simply means it is in perfect agreement with the mathematical formula for ET, which is itself compromised.

Now about all those guitar players. We must live in different worlds. I do occassionally run into guitar players who tune carefully to a meter (or a harmonic system of ET tuning) and leave it strictly there with no further tweaking by ear. They fall into three groups: 1) beginners who don't know anything about JI and ET and think the meter must be perfect, and their ears are untrustworthy, and if their guitar sounds off, it must be the fault of the instrument; 2) experienced players who don't completely understand the JI/ET issue, know that they can sometimes get better intonation by tweaking, but just get tired of tweaking between key changes; 3) players with good musical education, who understand the JI/ET problem, and choose ET to give them maximum flexibility in playing chords and changing keys without retuning.

Now I play with mostly advanced amateurs or semi-pros, not top full-time pros. The vast majority of these guitar players don't understand the JI/ET issue. They think there is one, and only one, tuning system and a meter is perfect. They tune at least their root Es to a meter, and may tune every string to a meter. Then they play a chord. It doesn't sound quite right to them (just as the writer in the above link says). They tweak a string or two by ear until it sounds right. They don't realize the meter gave them ET and they are detempering back to JI. They just think they must not have gotten it exactly right by the meter. They play a song with simple chords and no key modulations and it sounds fine, better than strict ET would.

Eventually a song comes up in an unrelated key. They are in the habit of hitting the tonic chord before a song starts, to see if they are still in tune. The new key doesn't sound so good. They don't think JI or ET. They just think their strings slipped or stretched, or the temperature changed. They either tweak by ear, or go back to the meter. If they go back to the meter, they may stay with it if they are in a hurry. But they frequently again hit the new chord and again tweak by ear after the meter. Retuning between songs becomes a way of life.

It turns out you can get a few simple chords in a single key closer to JI than ET is, without major conflicts. "Related" keys that share chords can sound better than ET without retuning between key changes. The keys of C and G, both share those two chords. You can tune by ear (might not be exactly JI, but is closer to that than to ET) and have these two keys sound sweeter than ET on simple songs. The keys of E and A also share two chords, and will work fairly well tuned by ear without retuning between keys. But if you switch from G or C, to E or A, you have to retune. This is fairly common knowledge among guitar players who tune by ear. They develop a feel for when they will have to retune. Not as much retuning is required as one might expect. Blues players can play all night in the keys of E and A. Bluegrass pickers can go for hours in the keys of G, C and D.

Since I started participating in these tuning discussions, I have carefully watched many, many guitar players. I see the vast majority doing this ear tweaking thing. I watch top pros at concerts. I see many of them (not all) do the exact same thing.

Many of the above ear tweakers don't know what they are doing, they just know it works for them. There are of course plenty of well educated guitarists who know exactly what they are doing. They know that for many simple songs they will get sweeter intonation if they tweak by ear away from the meter's ET and closer to the ear's JI. They know that for other songs, with more complicated progressions or key modulations, they are better off using strict ET by the meter. They choose which system to use according to the musical situation. Convenience also plays a role. In a live performance, to avoid retuning between songs, they may stick close to the meter. For the same song in the studio, they might take the time to sweeten up the chords with something closer to JI. They understand what they are doing. They understand the choices. They understand which system works best when. And they freely choose what they think works best for the situation. A modern jazz player might choose ET all the time. A folk baladeer might tweak to JI all the time. Others might do both depending on the song and the occassion. This is the state of understanding we should all be in. And my only goal is to further that understanding.

Guitars are not pianos or harps. They are easily retuned between songs. There are times when JI can be used, and there are times ET works better. Part of our musical education should be to experiment a little with each system and learn when each is appropriate, even if the answer ends up being "never" for one of them for some people.

The only reason I keep jumping into these tuning threads with the lengthy explanations, is to help people understand the appropriate uses of the two tuning systems, so they wont be bullied by one-sided simplistic arguments for one, and only one, system all the time, for every musical situation and every musical instrument. That simply ain't the case, and is not good musical theory or practice.

And by the way, JI is by no means doomed. Centuries after ET was invented, fretless strings, horns and vocalists still play their notes and harmonies by ear as close to JI as they can get, and no doubt will keep doing so until the sun turns into a red giant and swallows the earth. It's simple physics.

P.S., that writer from the American Lutiers Association was obviously trying to give some simple instructions and explanations for self-trained guitarists who don't know anything about JI and ET. I'm sure there are those in the association who understand the big picture and can take things into much more depth than that writer's simplistic little piece for beginners. I don't think they would disagree with anything I have said. They would certainly agree that ET is a comprised tuning, but a "necessary evil" for some instruments. They would also certainly agree that simple progressions in a single key can be tuned on a guitar closer to JI and will sound sweeter. And if they don't agree, well, I never had much 'spect for authority anyway. And nobody should take my word for anything either. Play around with the tuning and listen to your own ears.

[This message was edited by David Doggett on 22 July 2005 at 02:27 PM.]

It would be nice to hear from some top pro concert and session players. Do all studio guitarists always tune straight up by the meter, with no further tweaking by ear, live and in the studio, the way Jim and Eric claim? Or do some of them start by tuning to a meter, then tweak by ear, the way I see so many amateurs and semi-pros doing? Sure, we all see guitar players tune up with a meter. But are you paying attention when they then start hitting chords and tweaking by ear? Of course some players leave things by the meter. But I think further tweaking by ear is rampant. And unlike the above writer, I don't think it is always a bad thing. Umm...may not always be a good thing either.

[This message was edited by David Doggett on 22 July 2005 at 03:50 PM.]

If you are interested in having people give you money to record you need to sound perfect. Acceptable is not near good enough if you want to move beyond bar gigs.

The way the Nashville guys run everything they can through an auto tuner getting to perfect is much more difficult for steel players there.

I'm on the bandstand every weekend here in Portland. Never in a club that I won't get whoever wants to see me in the door.

Every time somebody with internet access comes to see me I seem to get "reviews".

I hear that I am not up in the mix in bands that have fired me for playing too loud, I have flashcards held up for solos ranging from 0 to 14, ( I think Harley James was drunk on that one), it's been inferred by one old couch potato that I ( or somebody just like me) played too many machine gun notes, don't play the songs they want to hear, or god knows what all. I can't remember being told that I was "out of tune".

I ALWAYS pay the cover if there is one, I never ask for tips, and Jeez I don't know I could cover airfare, but if somebody wants to give it a shot, I'll see how many FF miles I can get in a pool. Larry, your always welcome.

I've heard all the threats, insinuations, belittlements, obfuscations, rubegoldbergations, miswritten history lessons, outcome based physics, and the whole gamut.

I've still never seen a "Tuning System" that is as simple and easy to defend as the one I have.

Here it is again for those in Goshen:

1. Tune Eveything Straight Up, like the instruments that are taken seriously do. (You know, the ones you play with.)

2. Try your best to learn to play as true as you can, not making constant adjustments to what you [i[think[/i] you hear.

3. Repeat it a few thousand times onstage for money. Don't play for free, and don't beg.

4. When people harrass you about it, you can play word games with them as long as you wish, or simply tell them that Mr Emmons tunes that way, and watch 'em squirm. (Tell them further that you even did it that way before you knew he did to ice the cake.)

5. Get dressed, get those old strings changed, and got off to the gig. Just like every other weekend.

That's what I'm going to do right now.

Again I answer:

Not unless Happiness is their goal.

Other people playing steel seem to get really frustrated trying in vain to explain their tuning system, why and how it works, and get really hung up when somebody else can. Probably because of the inner frustration they have with theirs. I dunno. I'm not a phsy... psic.. pysh... well, you know..

It's so easy because I realised long ago, it's not my problem. It's theirs.

Did I mention that I recently asked Lloyd how he tunes?

I did.

He said he gets an E from an old round chromatic pitch pipe, puts his guitar in the car and heads out.

I would have felt pretty stupid saying "Then you must tune "ET".

I'd have felt even more stupid saying "Then, you must tune "JI".

(I can think of others that would thoughtlessly blurt the latter out, and not have it hit them until later....)

I used to think that "It's all been tried", but then Mr D, D, or others some up with some new doppler/frequency/equation ... theory, or somebody comes up with a new and improved "I could probably kick your ass", or "My guy can whip your guy".

Still nothing easier to understand, defend, or live with than what the American Luthier Society put in the link on the original post.

Good luck for those picking them and their theory apart.

( Oh yeah!. I just read Mr. D's "They must be talking simply because all the other luthiers and guitar players are TOO STUPID ( paraphrasing)to know what being in tune is. *

*(They actually only get that way after reading why and how Up is Really just a directional increment of Down, and a third of a fret doesn't matter as long as Al Demeola plays it that way, or the complete history of Musical Obfustation, and it's Practical Application until they really are thataway..)

Youse haven't had much luck with me.

I'll check back.

Any more at this write, and I'll not get my SITs put on my C6 neck for the gig.

See you there

....or not.

EJL

[This message was edited by Eric West on 22 July 2005 at 06:30 PM.]

So to save me a lot of reading, has anyone suggested to those interested in proving their tuning theory.... that they provide a sound sample of their playing "by themselves", and strumming the guitar including pedals and knee levers "before" they start playing?

This test/challenge for both proponents could be put on the forum which could benefit the steel guitar community in that it has the potential of answering the question once and for all for many.

I would think at the very least, those most outspoken on both sides would be very anxious to prove their theory.

I'm pretty sure that, for most people, pure just intonation would sound best. That's not the most important issue. How it blends with a band, some of whom may be tuned ET, is another important factor.

Just my take on it. With the utmost of respect for one of my heros.

------------------
Larry Bell - email: larry@larrybell.org - gigs - Home Page
2003 Fessenden S/D-12 8x8, 1969 Emmons S-12 6x6, 1971 Dobro, Standel and Peavey Amps

But then I wouldn't.

I've heard Mr Emmons' recordings privately ripped to shreds for "intonation problems" in emails and phone conversations. Both before and after he started tuning STRICTLY (remember the quote?) ET some 20 years ago. ( 21 by now)

I don't see how anybody else would have a snowball's chance to "prove" anything. "JI" OR "ET".

It's really hard for even seemingly intelligent people to understand that that's not what it's about.

It's about "Standards and Practices", to put it simply.

For this alledged "Just Intonation", there aren't any Uniform Standards. The Pedal Steel Guitar has come closer than any other instrument to being able to play a uniform JI "matrix". However it inevitably falls short in 2 areas:

1. There are always "holes" in at least one voicing in any position. (I haven't seen a guitar or a system that didn't leave one bigger than I would ever think of accepting. If I put a change on a guitar, I want to use it..)

2. There is no allowance for the up to a third of a fret on each side of the fret for single notes played out of "context".

All the "hubbub" ensues when people that claim "Uniformity" cannot show it, and resort to myriad literary device to cover for or divert from it. None of the diversion or other non issue issue compensates for this. Not in the overview.

They can indeed show that a system of "averaging" can cover for most of it, and that vibrato, speed of notes, and the disregard of b0b's "notes that no longer exist".

Then there are the problems of playing with instruments like the one that is the subject of the original post that don't tune that way.

That is actually Issue #3.

I don't have a particular "genius" that I know of. I just tune the simple way I tune and go about my life, playing the gigs I want to play with the people I want to play with. Every week with few exceptions. I have to beg off weekends about once every couple months to take care of other things. I don't want to "record". I don't want to go to Nashville and get in on the ground floor of musical panhandling, nor do I ever want to feel "important".

I enjoy reading and writing, I am not threatened by "complex issues" "metaphors" or other things communicative.

It's a very interesting subject, and only recently did I realise that there really aren't two sides of it.

Standards must be set for this instrument like the other instruments if indeed it is to be taken seriously.

Sooner or later.

I set mine sooner I guess.

They're right for me, and others may say or that is because I'm a hack.

I long ago showed at least 5 out of the ten signs of hackdom as posted previously. No argument on that from this end.

Others are free to do as they wish, and be whatever they think they are..

Bless their hearts.

EJL

I'm merely saying that to brand one as a 'necessary evil' is stretching it (to use an old piano tuning term).
I believe the guitar tutorial is saying, here's a way to do it, and you may have to accustom yourself to different sounding thirds (to paraphrase).

It's a matter of choices made, and I must defer to pedal steel players when it comes to adapting. Rarely do I hear a well-played steel sound out of tune (I don't get out much).

From a link in that discussion:
"Natasha Mostert's thriller The Other Side of Silence poses the question what would happen if the mystery of the Pythagorean Comma was solved. If the Pythagorean Comma should be eliminated, the world will be in possession of a perfect musical scale. This could have cosmic implications. Perhaps the Comma is forbidden fruit. Perhaps man is not meant to ever find a solution to this problem.

But in The Other Side of Silence, four friends are setting out on a quest to solve the puzzle of perfect tuning, unaware that this could have cataclysmic consequences. They have discovered in the Pythagorean Comma the master key to the building blocks of the universe. If this key is ever turned, it could well push the world to the brink of chaos..."

From http://www.natashamostert.com/novel2e.html

Those who play JI have provided thousands of recordings and performances over many years, therefore serve as testament to the theory.

Maybe some folks can post some ET stuff, too?

It sounded GREAT to be sure.

I still listen to it for purely educational purposes however.

I was pretty sure Roger played a fretless stand up bass on it. Are you saying theat he plays ET too? That'll wad Mr Doggett's knickers for sure..

Right now I'm headed out to get some Ranger parts and plan to catch the Greatful Dead Show on KBOO.

I think it's in "ET" this week..

I think one reason no one has posted such examples is because it takes a small investment in time. If you tune JI by ear, you would have to retune all your strings and stops straight up by the meter for the ET example. Then you'd have to retune everything again to get back to your regular playing tuning. It's a hassle. I retuned everything straight up once as an experiment. It didn't take long for me to realize it just wasn't for me. Then I had to retune everything by ear, and I cursed the wasted time. On the other hand, if you only know how to tune ET by a meter, you don't necessarily know how to tune optimally by ear, and there may not be an applicable chart for your guitar. Things have to be done in a certain order, although I have described my method in one or two previous posts.

The third or middle method of "tampered" tuning, with some notes between pure JI and ET, also needs to be presented. This is actually the way most of us tune I think.

Finally, as Larry said, we need to hear examples of both methods (or all three) along with a keyboard, as well as ET-tuned rhythm, lead and bass guitars.

Yeah, I think Roger tunes straight up, but as with any fretless instrument, all bets are off once you touch the strings.

[This message was edited by Pete Burak on 23 July 2005 at 10:46 AM.]

(2nd Ed. So.. Roger plays in "JI"? He sounded pretty close to "ET" to me..)

I think b0b posted a site that had a real time "JI" processor on the keyboards. It proved to me that my preferences were indeed toward "ET".

I'm hoping I have more time myself and can get a good relationship with my Podxt WRT levels, mixing etc. We'll see how much time I get this fall. In the meantime I always pay the cover and don't panhandle those that come to see and hear me.

*** Rambling Alert***

Last night was a good example of tuning issues. Both myself and Ron Ferrante, a great local guitar player had put on new strings. I had put them on the night before but had not worked in any of my changes.

Many of my changes needed readjusted on my Marrs, and I did it as I had time between songs in the two hour first set we usually play. It was nerve wracking to say the least, but it did't keep us from playing. It eventually resolved song by song to a point where we were both within a "comfort zone". I realized long ago that until I get everything within a couple cents of what I want to hear, it's not a fun thing, and I find it hard to "fly".

It reminded me of a couple years of playing next to or across from one of the worst intoned guitar players I have ever played with. There's a guy in town that still plays with him, and spends his weekend nights walled off behind plexiglass. I don't envy him in the least, bless his heart.

A lot of these things like tuning etc, Its really easy to get a wrong mental picture of who you are talking to and just as easy to marginalize hundreds or thousands of gigs' experience, or blow up a miniscule experience observation into something "written in stone". Some of my idols have minds of clay to match their feet.

Unfortunately many players after playing enough years with horrible intonated guitar players, vocalists, or even yes, keyboards find their senses dulled to the point of "it" not mattering. I have always maintained that playing with a lousy band is not harmful for a couple of years, and have always mercifully outlived the worst of them with few exceptions.

The ones I miss are the good ones like Kurt Radtke, and Buster, and my limited chances to play with the ones like Kevin Neal, Shawn O'Connnor, Monty Moss, Artie Bechtel when he wasn't throwing a little-girl fit or beating up a drummer that deserved it, Casey Waite, and others.

For now, I really like playing with Ron Ferrante, whose mentor Floyd Julian ( whom I played with twenty years ago briefly) taught him the chord progressions I am now re-learning, and plays IN TUNE. I can finally break into "Deep Water" as an instrumental and not have a bunch of half wits look at me when the five becomes the one and clam up..

The fact that my ears are always ringing on Saturday morning, and I always know whether I had a "good night" or a "bad night" the night before shows me that I still have a handle on "what's what".

I pray that I never lose it though I know it eventally slips away.

I think my goal is to look at the sun as much as I can without going blind, and listen to as much music as I can as loud as I can without going deaf, playing along as much as god allows..

My ears are ringing like every other saturday that I can remember...

Maybe if I live right I can have some more incredible "flying dreams" this week.

We all have different things that we like, I suppose.

Anyhow, back to the regularly scheduled programme...

I'm off to an afternoon of 86 Ford Ranger mechanics, and the Greatful Dead. Maybe with some Robt Hunter....

("To the town of Agua Fria, came a stranger one fine day..."...)

EJL

[This message was edited by Eric West on 23 July 2005 at 11:26 AM.]

I'll do it as I get time.

I rarely miss the opportunity to invite, aid and/or abet my own doom..

EJL

[This message was edited by Eric West on 23 July 2005 at 12:50 PM after realizing that he was doomed..]

[This message was edited by Eric West on 23 July 2005 at 02:12 PM.]

There are many misconceptions and false statements in these threads, but if you keep reading, they mostly get corrected. One caution is that people sometimes use the term "temper" for exactly opposite meanings. The correct meaning is that any adjustment away from pure JI is tempering. But some players mistakenly call adjustments away from an ET meter as tempering. The safest term is probably to speak of "adjusting" intonation, which could apply to adjusting away from JI or adjusting away from ET.

The other misconception that popped up was the idea some finicky classical piano player's idea of "in tune" could be the final word on what is perfectly in tune, and more authoritative than any steeler's idea. Nothing could be further from the truth. Piano players are simply accustomed to playing stretch ET-tuned pianos, that are usually tuned by professional tuners, not the piano players themselves. Thus, their idea of what is "in tune" is just as compromised as ET itself, which anyone can get from a meter. String and horn players play each note JI by ear, or may match by ear to some ET instrument they are accompanying. I would trust their ears before a piano player's ears. The conductor of a symphony orchestra would be more likely to want a steel guitar to match the JI playing of the strings and horns than to attempt to always play ET like a piano. Conductors are not particularly fond of ET and pianos.

Here are a few tuning threads:
http://steelguitarforum.com/Forum5/HTML/003833.html
http://steelguitarforum.com/Forum5/HTML/003912.html
http://steelguitarforum.com/Forum5/HTML/003992.html
http://steelguitarforum.com/Forum5/HTML/004051.html

[This message was edited by David Doggett on 23 July 2005 at 02:35 PM.]

In the beginning I had to type much more.

Now it's your turn.

My take on it and explanation of tuning ET has gotten simpler.

I knew it would.

You're going to be needing a "Wiley Coyote model Acme Word Processor™" before long..

Beep... beep...

quote:

---

"Let me hear you play. It'll be obvious whether you can play in tune or not."

---

I like the sound of Larry's logic. It must be tempered, however, with the fact that the ears of some are more forgiving.

quote:

---

Some avoid 3 note chords or certain voicings that rub the wrong way. Others tune closer to ET, opening up more intervals. Each has its pros and cons. Can EITHER be played in tune? Sure. Depends on how you play.

---

Once again, Larry has the inside track!

Some very famous steelers play mostly 2 note intervals because they can be made to sound perfect more easily. Additionally, a couple of other famous steelers play 2 note intervals that are, well, far from perfect.

quote:

---

Buddy Emmons
From: Hermitage, TN USA
posted 02 May 2002 12:44 PM
Dennis:
I tune my thirds to 438 just to compensate for a possible drift of that note a cent or two sharp.

For everybody else, no matter how much you quibble over two cents, harmonics, fundamentals, or any other rationale, when your 434 clashes with a 440 in the band, you're gonna lose.

---

Nuff said. No matter how badly one wants to reduce this to black hats and white hats, the fact remains that most guys wear grey hats.

------------------
Larry Bell - email: larry@larrybell.org - gigs - Home Page
2003 Fessenden S/D-12 8x8, 1969 Emmons S-12 6x6, 197? Sho-Bud S-12 7x6, 1971 Dobro, Standel and Peavey Amps

1. Must those who play ET, retune their guitars when playing by themselves to make the intonation musically palatable?

2. How can a guitar considered "out" of tune to the ear when played by itself, be considered "in" tune when playing with other instruments?

3. When playing either ET or JI we have to adjust to the intonation characteristics of other instruments. In so doing how does one then defferentiate the attributes or define the differences of JI and ET?

4. If someone uses ET and does not tune the 3rd and 6th intervals to 440, why is it still considered ET, when that in itself is JI?

5. If ET has JI,is that not a contradiction?

6. If the 3rd and 6th intervals are not tuned 440, (which would appear to represent inconsistency) why would it not be prudent to tune the entire guitar to JI so it sounds musically palatable with and without other instruments?

7. Would someone who plays ET please submit a sound file?

I have never heard anyone who plays with total ET. If a sound file has been presented in the past, I would appreciate someone providing a link.

1. No. I'm not one of them, but have it on good authority they just learn to accept what it sounds like. (I yield here to those who use ET)
2. It DOES happen. When I tuned to the Newman or Emmons charts, a long time ago, I had several sessions where I played a steel part with a rh gtr, bass, drums, and vocal. When the piano (electronic kbd, tempered to ET) was added it would raise the hairs on the back of your neck. I retracked after splitting the difference between ET and JI (4-8 cents flat on thirds instead of 16, for example) and it sounded fine. From that point on, that's how I've tuned.
3. Probably less adjustment the closer you come to ET, IF you're playing with an ET keyboard or other equally tempered instruments. That's what Buddy has said. You still gotta use your EARS.
4. NO. It's not ET. There are terms for several systems like meantone, but I prefer TAMPERED myself.
Actually, not tuning to 440 doesn't make it JI. JI is a prescribed set of offsets from ET (440, whatever). If one tunes thirds to 438 or 439, it's NEITHER ET nor JI.
5. Of course it is.
6. Not necessarily, because of the fact that the E to F change on E9 ends up almost a THIRD OF A FRET FLAT when one uses true JI.
7. I don't tune ET, but I may record some examples of ET, JI, and TAMPERED, just for grins. Gimme a day or two.

------------------
Larry Bell - email: larry@larrybell.org - gigs - Home Page
2003 Fessenden S/D-12 8x8, 1969 Emmons S-12 6x6, 197? Sho-Bud S-12 7x6, 1971 Dobro, Standel and Peavey Amps

[This message was edited by Larry Bell on 24 July 2005 at 08:28 AM.]

quote:

---

I may record some examples of ET, JI

---

I'd love to hear that Larry. That would be a lot of fun and once all the opinions are done, this thread may end up 200 posts long!! In your hands, I already know the answer. Both the ET and JI will be in tune. There will be TEXTURAL differences in the sound. I bet the JI will sound creamy, and the ET gritty, sort of like smooth versus crunchy peanut butter. But they'll both taste yummy. .. I'm hungry all of a sudden.

1. When I play by myself, inbetween every weekend gigs in the basement I don't spend any time at all "retuning". I hit it as necessary. Sometimes the keys get bumped. If I change to a different guage string I'll adjust the change accordingly and "square it in" with a tuner. So shoot me.

2.It either is or it isn't. "Averaging" has been discussed at length. I forget the equatiion, but I didn't understand it anyway.

3.When you are playing it is too late, and is done by motor function. I don't know of a "tuning issue" with another instrument that can't be solved with a Standard Conn Strobe or it's more modern and accurate counterparts.

4. It is not.

5. If it is in relation to Q#4 it is.

6. If so, you might as well. A person can't be "a little bit pregnant".

7. Here's a short clip I posted a couple years ago, and I'd hoped to get some more input and trade, but all I got was nonsense. Believe me, I'll post more, and expect more.

7a. You might give according to Mr Emmons, a listen to his playing over the last twenty one years. His quotes on the subject are crystal clear.

Lloyd's quote from the email I just got this morning was "Just get a "good" E note from someone and learn to tune the "durn" thing."

He also mentioned that Paul Franklin, to his ears, plays perfectly in tune. I'm so glad he put that to rest. (I'm sure Paul is relieved too.) I enjoyed his E9 speed picking courses, and found that I was able to play "in tune" with them myself. Gee, how was that possible since sometimes I didn't even tune my guitar?

From the beginning I found it astounding that if you want to play the psg, you have to have this note "so flat", or this note "so sharp", and this pedal or knee lever thus and such, and use "this chart" or tune like "this guy".

I'll go on with this because my method of tuning is so simple, solid, and easy for even a beginner to understand. That is actually the ONLY reason I care at all. I've been thanked by more than a couple of them that would have otherwise accoring to them "gone nuts" with all this nit picking overcomplicated BS.

If it had been represented that way to me by Mr Charleton in 77 I think I'd have quit instead of playing steadily for 26 years and wearing a ProIII down to a bloody nub.

I learned to play in tune and with deliberation about 5 years into the process, and have never looked back.

It doesn't need to be do dingedy damned ( can I say that) complicated.

(I think people should think about it a little more before posting all this rubegoldbergian hocus pocus in front of new players. That's all.)

It can be if you want, but only for you.

( Reece, I am not meaning you but only in the general sense of steel players.)

A person can always find reasons to hesitate, or quit I guess.

The opposite sadly is not necesarily true.

I've managed to find them, and god willing will continue to, with now my body wearing out faster than my new guitar.

Nobody on this earth is going to make me doubt my method of tuning, and that it is right for me.

It's too late.

EJL

[This message was edited by Eric West on 24 July 2005 at 01:07 PM.]

Or not.

You would have to admit though, add enough reverb to any tuning method and no one would ever notice JI, ET, whatever, on a given gig (or 25 years worth of gigs).
No?

1. It's hard for me to imagine anyone having the ability to force the mind to consciously and subconsciously erase pitch discrepancies to the point it never again enters their mind.

It would seem to me that IF it were possible to attain that seemingly insurmountable ability, they would never know if they were in tune in the first place.

It would also seem to me that were it even possible to attain the mental blockout of pitch references, one would have to believe in something more important than pitch itself to convince themselves of the validity of compromising it, and that specific thing is what I'm trying to understand and define.

2. Since I have never played total ET I have not had the opportunity to experience that which you refer too. Many years ago I pulled up my 3rd and 6th intervals to ET, and it was so far out of tune to my ear I immediately pulled them back, never to go there again.

3. Over the years I have been fortunate to have played most kinds of music with different bands including symphonies, and I never felt I was out of tune. It could of course be argued my ear is not good enough to hear it.

4. I too tune my 3rd and 6th just ever so slightly sharp, so with this said, (to use your termonology) TAMPERED is something most do, which to me is an aside from what I was understanding from the ET players perspective.

My question still remains....why do ET players tune so far from pleasing in the first place, when a more dramatic pitch compromise has the ability to fill the complete musical spectrum.

5. We agree.

6. Your response to this is of course true, but poses the question as to why ET players may be opposed to compromising the difference, which has the potential of making them sound in tune in all playing instances and environments, and not just a band situation!

Thank you again for your response and I will be looking forward to hearing the sound files from you and anyone who has samples of the ET approach of tuning.

Jeff L....I too suspect a compromise between the two will emerge, and at this time I believe, in the end the ET believers will come closer to JI, then we can live happily ever after.