posted 22 November 1999 06:53 PM         

Regular guitar transposes down one octave, so what's written as middle C in the sheet music actually sounds an octave lower. Because of the PSG's higher register, this 8vb octave transposition doesn't work for steel You end up with ledger line "scaffolding" that towers over the clef itself. Not good, and nearly impossible to read!

I have a book by DeWitt Scott where everything is written at concert pitch, i.e., no transposition. This is okay, but then you get the "scaffolding" beneath the clef. For example, an open low B is written as five full ledger lines under the clef!

To me, this doesn't make alot of sense. Don't get me wrong, I have nothing but respect for DeWitt Scott and everything he's done for PSG, but there are lots of other instruments that transpose to facilitate reading, and I think it could help with steel too.

For example, trumpet and soprano sax transpose a major 2nd, alto sax a 6th, French horn a 5th, etc. For each of these instruments, the decision to write their parts in a different key than they actually sound was based on the instrument's range and to facilitate reading. In other words, the same reasons you might consider it for steel.

Looking at the range of my 10 string E9, a transpostion up a 4th would seem to provide more balance between the upper and lower ledger lines. I'm not talking about changing the tuning, only the way the notes are read from the paper.

E.g., with a 4th transposition, the open low B would be written as the E below the lower three ledger lines (same as "low E" on regular guitar). The high A at the 13th fret on the 3rd string would be written as the D over the upper two ledger lines. Stop and think about it.

For stuff above the 14th or 15th fret, the 8va mark could be employed, since the patterns are the same as the lower neck. As I said before, this would allow the majority of notes on the neck to be written with a minimum of ledger lines (and associated wobbly scaffolding!

This is a lot simpler than I'm making it sound. Think of it this way: If you wanted to hear a tune in G, you would write it out in C.

BTW, Most harmonica players instinctively use a 4th transposition when playing blues or "cross harp". I.e., to play blues in G, you use a C harp. And I can't imagine steelers letting themselves be outsmarted by a bunch of harmonica players! (It's probably too late, they can carry their instrument in their back pocket... )

I'm curious as to what other people think about a transposition standard for notating PSG. I think it would be tough at first, if for no other reason than people are used to doing it "the old way".

Here's a summary of why I think a transposition of a 4th could help for writing out steel parts in standard notation:

1) In my opinion, it's NOT working the way it is. Most steelers can't read. Better to do something than do nothing.

2) It balances the range of the instrument more evenly over the entire clef, and fewer ledger lines makes it easier to read.

3) The G major scale at the 3rd fret that most of us learn first would be notated as C major, i.e., no sharps or flats. Great for beginners.

4) "Open E9" would be written as "Open A9". Since the key of A has one less sharp than the key of E, this would further simplify notation. I.e., less sharps most of the time.

5) If even only a third of the "up and comers" learn to read, the flood gates will be opened. Musical literacy is important to developing a body of musical literature, i.e. a repertoire, that can stand the test of time and ensure the future of the instrument.

I dunno', this is just an idea that came to me as a burst of inspiration. Whaddya' think? Have I COMPLETELY lost my mind!? Any and all input greatly appreciated.

Regards,

posted 23 November 1999 11:45 AM         

I think writing on a different clef would solve the problem without transposing. I don't have my musical reference books handy (I'm at the office), but I seem to remember that the cello uses a clef that's lower than the treble clef.

posted 23 November 1999 04:34 PM         

Thank you for your response here as well as in the "Reading Piano Scores" thread. I have looked at different clefs for use with steel, and none of them seem to fit the bill any better than the treble clef. Cello uses a regular bass clef.

Other clefs that I have considered include the "C clef" which takes the shape of a "K", where the intersecting arms of the K mark middle C. These were common in the baroque era and were often used for horns before the idea of transposed notation caught on. Unfortunately, the use of the C clef does not eliminate the "scaffolding" of ledger lines in pedal steel music. If it did, I would be all for it's resurrection!

I've also considered other G clefs, the most common being a G clef moved down or up a third. Moving it up a third helps a little, but it can be confusing since it looks like a regular treble clef at first glance. Also, this still doesn't resolve the problem of vociferous ledger lines. Again, many of the instruments that originally used these clefs have since become transposing instruments, allowing them to use the regular treble (or bass) clef.

The notation chart you posted to the other thread uses the "grand staff", i.e., the usual staff for piano music where both the treble and bass clefs work together as one staff. This works as far as PSG ranges are concerned, and at first glance, the grand staff seems a reaonable option. On the other hand, I think there are drawbacks to using the grandstaff to notate PSG music that make the use of a single treble clef preferable:

1) The grand staff was originally conceived for piano because of the piano's range AND polyphonic capabilities. The grandstaff is ideally suited for piano because you usually play the bass with one hand, and play the treble with the other. Dividing the two hands into two staves makes sense in this context. Also, PSG does not have the same range (piano goes much lower) OR comparable polyphonic capabilities. While the range of the steel will fit on the grandstaff, in my opinion, the PSG's more limited polyphonic capabilities do not justify using two staves. With PSG, just as with regular guitar, one stave is usually enough. In the few exception cases, as with regular guitar, the clef can be changed for the few measures where it provides added clarity.

2) Having ten lines (eleven if you count the "unwritten" middle C) makes it cumbersome to read, probably harder than tab. The idea is to come up with something *easier* than tab (and more descriptive/accurate too). When people first started writing music, they often used lots of lines per stave. I've seen old choral scores with more than 20 lines per stave! Talk about a reading nightmare! During the renassiance and baroque eras, a process of "de-evolution" began where staves got smaller until we had ended up with the modern system of five lines per stave. I say, "Why try and reinvent the wheel?" It's already been done -- we just have to use it!

3) Unlike piano, where you often have two distinct lines, one in the bass clef and one in the treble clef, PSG music often crosses back and forth between the two. This is sort of an extension of 1 and 2 above, as well as a rationale for tranposing up a 4th. The natural range of the PSG fits on the grand staff, but conceptually, you are not really dividing the melody into "bass" and "melody" as with piano. Also, since the you are moving between the bass and treble clefs, you actually end up reading more lines than you would with regular tab.

There a few other reasons I can think of, but these are the main ones. In short, the grandstaff is cumbersome and was designed to solve different problems than those particular to transcribing PSG music. Nevertheless, the grandstaff will always be useful in tuning charts where you want to compare the range of the PSG to piano!

Please understand that I am not dogmatically attached to idea of a fourth transposition. I just think I might have accidentally stumbled onto something here, and I am hoping that through dialogue with other steelers, we might come up with a "better way". I'm going to write out some standard tunes and scale exercises using the 4th transposition, and I would like to know if anyone would be interested in trying them on for size. I hope to hear from you!

posted 23 November 1999 06:24 PM         

If you do a search in this topic for TUNINGS VIII you should find an approach to "tab" that is shown as more "embellished" than is necessary after one gets a bit used to the treble staff.

posted 23 November 1999 07:17 PM         

quote:

---

I dunno', this is just an idea that came to me as a burst of inspiration. Whaddya' think? Have I COMPLETELY lost my mind!?

---

Yes.

The guitar method (treble clef sounding an octave lower) works fine.

Alto and tenor clefs work fine too since they are each only one step away from treble clef sounding an octave lower. I use them sometimes but it would be better to use treble clef since more people can read it.

BTW cello uses bass and tenor clefs.

posted 23 November 1999 11:00 PM         

I started this thread in search of a reliable method for reading music onto PSG. It's frustrating that there are so many different proprietary approaches to PSG notation, most of which are more complicated than reading regular music.

It's like, why learn this system or that system, when all I really want is to read regular music!?

I originally studied classical guitar at Boston Conservatory, so that's where I'm coming from. From everything I've seen, the established standards for notating classical guitar could apply equally well to PSG. I keep wondering why it hasn't been done yet. Why start from square one (or 2 or 3) when you can start on square ten?

For example, a Roman numeral indicates the position on the fretboard, open strings can be shown by putting a small "o" next to the note, RH finger patterns can be indicated as sequences of p, i, m, and a under the staff (p=pulgar, Spanish for thumb, i=index, m=middle, a=anular or "ring finger").

Obviously, the main difference between regular guitar and PSG is that instead of LH fingerings, you have pedals. This isn't as problematic as it might seem since most of the time the postion of the bar will dictate whether a pedal is necessary. E.g., if the Roman numeral is VIII and the note is a high "F", the use of the B pedal is implicit.

In cases where you have a choice, e.g., the second string or the E lever, to indicate the E lever, the letter "E" could be put next to the note in place of the traditional LH finger indicator (1,2,3, or 4, etc...). Conversely, no "E" would mean use the second string.

Since PSG is an American instrument, we might choose to use (t, i, m, and r) instead of (p, i, m, and a) to show RH fingers. Personally, I think the less we deviate from standard guitar notation, the better. Incidentally, this is concurrent with Mr. Bovine's approach...

With regards to the idea of transposing up a 4th, I'm still not convinced that it's a bad idea.

Mr. Bovine stated that the octave transposition as found on regular guitar works fine for steel too. It sounds "do-able", but you do end up with a lot of ledger lines over the clef. For example, the PSG's high G# at the 12th position would be 4 ledger lines over the staff.

At this point, I'm resigned to reading onto steel at either concert pitch or 8vb. I thin I'm gonna' give 4ths a whirl too. Nevertheless, I still think there's a better way! When I find it I'll let y'all know!

I'm curious, are there any other classical guitarists in this forum? I have not yet meet anyone else who plays both classical and PSG. I'm hope I'm not the only one!

J.

[This message was edited by Jay Friedrich on 11-23-99]

posted 24 November 1999 05:41 AM         

Lots of forward and backward slants were used in those days; players were/are more into knowing how the top pickers made the moves than making up an arrangement of their own, ..tab did the job.

Another issue is that today there are double 10 string, double 12 string, 14 string instruments, with many different tuning/change structures. 12 and 14 string tab begins to look like the grand staff by itself. Tab for one players setup/tuning does not work for anothers. If one wants to make the moves as Buddy Emmons, or Herby Wallace, or ? does, .. buy their tab.

Some pickers have the advantage of a good ear and after a while can tell by the recording what bar moves string bends are being made. Many of the pickers on the forum and in the joints will brag that they don't read music, ..it is just not part of the culture.

Studio work is mostly by chord charts, ..the instrument is seldom arranged for in advance; the player is mostly on his own when it comes to creating his part.

What instrument type and tuning and setup are you planning to use? What type of music are you planning to play?

posted 24 November 1999 01:47 PM         

The "Big Melody" system you describe sounds great! The chord symbols would serve as a guide to which position/pedals to use, and then the melody can be picked out from there. Without even thinking about it, I guess this is kind of what I've been doing up 'till now anyway!

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think alot of us approach it this way!

And you're right, to be specific about positions, strings, or pedals, it would be easy to embellish. I like this idea. I was originally thinking along the lines of exact note-for-note transcriptions, the kind you usually see written out on the grand staff, but your idea seems so simple, and it builds the right skills necessary to eventually be able to read regular piano music and come up with a workable arrangement as you go along.

Ed,

You make some really good points about the evolution of the instrument necessitating a reliance on tab. And it makes sense to learn how to read w/o pedals first, at least as far as your basic chords and scales, and then add the pedals later. In the classical world, this is what they call "pedagogy". How's that for a two-dollar word?!

It's funny what you say about players braggin' they can't read. I've run into this attitude before but I've never understood it. It's like a poet or a story teller bragging that they can't read letters! As if reading would somehow inhibit one's "feel". I'm sure there have been some great poets who couldn't read, but we'll never know...

As to the instrument/style I'm working with, I've got an old S10 MSA Classic w/ 3&4. I'm interested in bluegrass, classical, jazz (includes ragtime), and just plain "gorgeous steel" ala John Hughey. I have been thinking about adapting some Carcassi and Sor studies, and I have a Bach violin partita that I think would sound good on steel.

There have been several times when I thought my instrument was holding me back and I was ready to upgrade, but so far, the limitations have always turned out to be with me rather than the instrument. It would be nice to have some more range in the bass, and some extra pulls would be nice for transcribing John Hughey! Otherwise, I think the possibilities of E9 S10 3&4 are still relatively untapped.

I noticed you play a 14 string. I have been thinking about getting a U12, but I'm not sure if it would really be that much of an improvement over what I've got. How do you like your guitar? What prompted you to get 14 strings instead of 12 (or 10)? Thanks for your input.

Best regards,

posted 24 November 1999 05:02 PM         

A 10 string E9 with 3 & 4 was enough for Lloyd Greene to do some mind blowing things.

In my opinion, if you are going to play the Nashville sound, and bluegrass there is no need for more than what you have. If you want to do Western swing, you would want some form of the 6th based neck.

It is possible to get both on one physical neck, usually a 12 string in a "universal" setup. There are several forms of "universal", ..E9/B6/A6, .. some like Pee Wee Whitewing use Eb9/Bb6/Ab6, ..and some like Maurice Anderson use Bb6 as the starting tuning.

Re having more bass range, ..if with a standard country band you will probably stay out of the bass range (mostly), as it gets in the way of other instruments and makes mud. If you are going to play with just bass, rythm guitar, and drums (brushes maybe), and play a lot of chords as well as melody and fill, then the added bass range is good to have. Ingeneral, swing, jazz, standards lie best on the 6th based tunings. Euther the 10 string 6th based neck or the 12 string universal setups have added range. An illustration of what can be done for these types of music on C6 can be heard on Curly Chalker, or Maurice Anderson recordings.

Re why 14 strings; I played standard guitar and lap steel (several tunings) in the Boston area in the late 40's and early 50's, then hung it up untill the 80's. When I came back to the steel it had grown legs, levers, extra strings, and a whole bunch of other appendages; I chose a 12 string E9/B6/A6 with 8+5 and a B6 lock. There were some mechanical things that bothered me. The manufacturer and I got together at the NAMM show in Anaheim Ca and the issues were resolved.

The demo player for the manufacturer at the NAMM show was a retired Navy man by the Name of Bill Stafford, ..he was playing a 14 string unit of his design. We hit it off and spent enough time in the same places that I had him make me one like his; this made it more convenienient for him to demo (show) his moves to others as they could sit at mine and be shown.

Being a chord and music structure nut, I started using a computer to solve for necks/tunings/changes etc. and came up with the two octave seven tone chord structure variation using 14 strings. The thoughts behind this tuning are partially laid out in the "Tunings" (like tunings VIII) series earlier in this topic.

If you want to know what Bill Stafford's unit/tuning sounds like applied to everything from "So lonesome I could cry" to an excerpt from "Dvorak's symph #9", Bill has several albums out; He is found on the forum.

posted 24 November 1999 07:47 PM         

Actually, I think that just using a single stave, and switching clefs between treble and bass when necessary, works just fine for most music. Also, marking "8va" for passages well above the treble clef is appropriate when we get up there.

posted 24 November 1999 11:45 PM         

The problem is not notation IMHO. Its that the steel is vastly complex. Guitar players complain about there problems with note selection. We have it about 100 times worse.

There are almost zero gigs out there for reading steel players. And there are hardly any steels players interested in reading or the music that reading opens up.

On a practical level- Who is going to write this music ?
Who is going to teach the arrangers and composers this new complex really cool pedalsteel writing method?

That said;

I sometimes get reading gigs and I am way into it. You do your best to deal with whatever the composer hands you. If you think that the problem is that there is no cohesive method available dream on. Classical players get handed all sorts of unplayable garble from composers. Part of the gig is learning how to deal with that stuff.

I just ask the arranger if he wants his part at concert or like a guitar. Then I go over it and make adjustments in range, voicings, whatever and check with the composer to see if its cool.

Its the gigs that are going to get steel players reading. We need to knock on those doors personally and bring our steels with us.

posted 25 November 1999 12:37 AM         

I guess I lost my mind there for a bit, but I sure had fun doin' it!

Seriously, this discussion gave me a new perspective on reading for steel. The treble clef is the way to go. I might try Mr. Thompson's "big n' easy" suggestion as a way to ramp up the learning curve. As they say, "Rome wasn't built in a day!"

I gotta admit, the alto clef does have some appeal, but I'll learn treble clef before I open my own PSG publishing house. Bob, could you please close this thread so I won't publicly embarrass myself in it anymore?!