The Steel Guitar Forum
Pedal Steel Archive
'straightening out' e9 to e96 (e13?) (Page 2)
UBBFriend: Email This Page to Someone!
profile | join | preferences | help | search
Steel Guitar Strings Strings & instruction for lap steel, Hawaiian & pedal steel guitars http://SteelGuitarShopper.com |
Ray Price Shuffles Classic country shuffle styles for Band-in-a-Box, by BIAB guru Jim Baron. http://steelguitarmusic.com |
This Forum is CLOSED. |
|
|
The Steel Guitar Forum
Pedal Steel Archive
'straightening out' e9 to e96 (e13?) (Page 2)
profile | join | preferences | help | search
|
| This topic is 2 pages long: 1 2 This topic was originally posted in this forum: Pedal Steel |
| Author | Topic: 'straightening out' e9 to e96 (e13?) |
|
Andrew Waegel Member Posts: 87 |
posted 04 February 2002 04:31 PM
Hello, I'm an amateur picker who's been at it for a few years, and I've always had a problem with the 'quirky' parts of e9, like that low D string, and the 'out of order' (at least to my mind) chromatics. They've always seemed like a barrier to a truly musical understanding of this tuning. Of course it doesn't seem to be a barrier to the masters, but I'm not them and need all the help I can get! Plus I'm a tinkerer at heart. So what I've done is 'straighten out' the e9 tuning and make the top 5 strings just like the bottom 5. This makes a world more sense to me, and it seems like it would be much easier to figure out where all the chord pockets live all over the neck. Here's a pretty simple version I'm going to try on my Sierra Artist 3x4: I'm wondering if anyone has been down the path, and if so, how did it work out? I suspect it'll be a bit harder to play the standard e9 licks with this tuning, but I think I over-rely on them anyway. Plus it's basically all there, one just needs to use special grips more often. I was inspired by two other threads on this forum: and ...both started by our gracious host Bobby Lee. Thanks all for any feedback you can give! |
|
Bobby Lee Sysop Posts: 14849 |
posted 04 February 2002 05:49 PM
I did the exact same thing when I first started playing. See this page. It was in D instead of E, but the intervals were the same as yours. Here's what I found:
But the biggest problem was that I couldn't get work! Back in the 70's, every bandleader wanted that E9 sound, and I just didn't have it. The finger patterns are very different. ------------------ |
|
Ron Castle Member Posts: 229 |
posted 04 February 2002 06:37 PM
I've tuned my u-12 from 1-10 just like this for almost a year. I much prefer it to the std set up. Only I have lots more changes, and it would be good if you could find a way to raise your C# strs to D# (as well as keep the D- you'll find that terrifcly useful) The C# adds a wealth of new changes. I have found that by arranging the strings and adding the 2 C#s, my ability has improved greatly. But you will looses some country flavors. Also, if youre not using thumb and 3 finger picks your missing out on some great chord voicings. |
|
Jeff Lampert Member Posts: 2636 |
posted 04 February 2002 08:32 PM
Just a few thoughts. You're trying to make musical sense out of the E9 tuning. IMO, there isn't any. Unlike the C6 tuning, the E9 wasn't developed out of musical theory or philosophy - it was developed to create a commercial, sellable sound. It is a pasted together tuning. The top 2 strings were added for a certain sound. The 9th string D was added to get a certain sound. And so on. By creating your own tuning, you will, IMO, find it much harder to play the commercial stuff, and you will find it much, much harder to use tab. But, as has already been pointed out, if you change it, you won't be the first to do so. But, with the exception of the Universal players who removed the D string but kept the rest intact, you will be in an extreme minority. |
|
Al Marcus Member Posts: 7471 |
posted 04 February 2002 10:02 PM
Andrew-Get a copy of this Months PSGA Newsletter. I have an article with a E6-E9 tuning called "lean and mean" 5 pedals and 5 knee levers on a single 10 guitar....al  |
|
Bobby Lee Sysop Posts: 14849 |
posted 05 February 2002 09:55 AM
I disagree, Jeff. A lot of the E9th was driven by music theory. For example, the F lever came from a need to slide from each inversion of a major chord to the next. The 'C' pedal was placed next to the 'B' pedal so that they could be combined to get a minor chord. The music theory of the E9th is based on triads and the transitions between them. The music theory of the C6th is based on extended chords. The U-12 tries to do both, and for the most part it succeeds, but its complexity intimidates some players. ------------------ |
|
Andrew Waegel Member Posts: 87 |
posted 05 February 2002 10:37 AM
Hi all, This is interesting stuff...Ron, where's your c# -> d# change, floor or knee? Andrew |
|
Jerry Hayes Member Posts: 3306 |
posted 05 February 2002 12:06 PM
Hey there Jeff, Founded on musical theory is the C6th? How 'bout a simple little thing like a major scale. On an E9th tuning you have a root at the 8th string. You can start right there and play a simple major scale. On the C6th there's a root at string 7. Try playing a simple major scale WITHOUT MOVING THE BAR if you can. Some players now are putting a D in their tuning and dropping the low C from the tuning to do this. Also b0b, about that G# in the first position and the sound of it. It worked great for Zane Beck, Zane King, and then there's my personal hero Ralph Mooney. It sounds great with them. As for the F# in position behind the G# I don't think it would nearly as fast to play the notes E F# G# that way. I know it's not for me and I don't think it'd be as clean that way either. ------------------ |
|
Randy Pettit Member Posts: 323 |
posted 05 February 2002 01:29 PM
From what I've read by others, I always thought the 10-string E9 tuning evolved out of some minor variations to the ever-popular 8-string E13. I too, have "straighted out" the top three strings of my 12-string E9/B6, basically getting rid of the so-called "chromatic strings": [This message was edited by Randy Pettit on 05 February 2002 at 01:30 PM.] |
|
Donny Hinson Member Posts: 9192 |
posted 05 February 2002 02:44 PM
Andrew, the "barriers" are in your mind, not on the guitar! Change your tuning any way you want...but remember when you do, that's probably all you'll ever be able to play well!!! I always advise beginners to stick with what's most popular. If you do decide to change, remember that someday you'll have to pass on the chance to play someone else's guitar, or have them decline playing yours. Then you might regret the "individualism" you're desiring right now. Sometimes, being "different" is the shortest route to success, and sometimes...it's just a dead-end street. |
|
Ron Castle Member Posts: 229 |
posted 05 February 2002 03:28 PM
Andrew, I have a seperate C#-D# pdl, I have the C#-D on a KL opposite of my E-Eb. Donnie, I think some of your objections are valid, but not always. If a young person, looking to make a career of playing country music was not staying with the standard tuning, then I would agree 100%. For myself, having started PSG at age 50, but with very substantial theory/improvisational and classical experience, I think it makes more sense 'straightening' out the tuning just like most other instruments, so that I can apply my musical skills without dealing with the peculiarities of the existing string layout. Jerry, BTW, it was comments by Al Marcus and some e-mail exchange that convinced me to try [This message was edited by Ron Castle on 05 February 2002 at 03:31 PM.] |
|
Bobby Lee Sysop Posts: 14849 |
posted 05 February 2002 05:18 PM
One problem occurs when you raise your B to C#. If the next string is a C#, it will start to vibrate. Then when you let off the pedal, you have this "ghost" note ringing. The standard E9th doesn't have this problem. If you tune the string to D (like the Sacred Steelers) you won't have the problem either. Notice that there's not a G to A pedal on the C6th. It would have the same problem. You can mute the adjacent C# string with your little finger. I have a pedal that raises my 7th string F# to G#, and I often use pinky muting to avoid the sympathetic vibration. It does get to be a nuisance at times. ------------------ |
|
Pete Burak Member Posts: 2750 |
posted 05 February 2002 06:08 PM
Here's what I've been using: [This message was edited by Pete Burak on 05 February 2002 at 06:10 PM.] Actually this needs a few edits (b0b?...anybody know how to edit these changes?) LKL raises string 11 E to F also. [This message was edited by Pete Burak on 05 February 2002 at 06:18 PM.] |
|
Andrew Waegel Member Posts: 87 |
posted 05 February 2002 10:16 PM
b0b, I think you make a good point about the 2 adjacent strings on the same note; I'll try it and see what happens. Maybe through my flawless technique I will avoid this problem  I appreciate and agree that deviating from standard e9 means deviating from that sound, at least a little. At this stage of my musical life that doesn't sound like a bad idea, but I get the point. Also agree that the barriers are in the mind - too true! But that doesn't mean that changing your external reality can't help. One of the things starting me down this path is reading the excellent Jazz Theory Book by Mark Levine, which advocates a 'scale-centered' approach to chord changes. Don't get me wrong, I was over my head about 2 pages into this book but am still getting a lot out of it. Many of my favorite country pickers (steel + 6 string) have been fluent in the flavors of jazz so it seems like a good avenue to explore. Now where did all my free time go? |
|
Jim Phelps Member Posts: 2936 |
posted 05 February 2002 10:50 PM
It seems to me that a steel player, beginner or not, who already has been playing or attempting to play any certain tuning (E9th in this case) and found that he doesn't like it and has the ability to read this forum, is aware enough to make a decision on changing his setup. He obviously already knows what the big guys and the rest of us use for setups and that if he wants to sound like that, then he should use what his "heros" use. Given that all these people who have changed their tunings and setups already have this knowledge and at some later point in their musical development might likely decide to change their tunings and setups again maybe for even more unusual setups or maybe back to the most traditional "standard" setup, brings me to the conclusion; "So What?" Let them change it anyway they want. They know what sounds they're giving up and want to find out what they might gain. Experimentation isn't a bad thing. [This message was edited by Jim Phelps on 06 February 2002 at 12:21 AM.] |
|
Ricky Littleton Member Posts: 588 |
posted 06 February 2002 07:28 AM
Check me if I'm wrong, but didn't Zane Beck do something similar to what Andrew is doing? ------------------ |
|
Jeff Lampert Member Posts: 2636 |
posted 06 February 2002 08:09 AM
quote: I don't consider having a pedal available to make a convenient inversion as having a significant theoretical basis. Nor do I consider the C pedal to be theoretically significant. The C pedal is used 85% of the time to make those double-stop chromatic licks (which we all love, of course). I feel that that is also a tack-on to the tuning. It seems to me that the strings and pedals were all tack-ons to create commerical sounds. Of coruse, a great deal of other stuff can be done with it, but the evolution seems driven out of a "lick" kind of thinking, at least IMO.
quote: On E9, try playing a diminished scale, wholetone scale, try playing b9, #11, and 13th chords with more than 3 notes, without having to struggle to find them. Try playing something as basic as a FULL diminshed 7 chord (4 notes), without your knees and grips flying all over the place. The theoretical basis of C6 is the strings are separated by third intervals, which matches the theoretical basis of building chord structures. b0b of course is right that the C6 tuning lends itself to extended chords. It is the LACK of a theoretical basis for E9, and it's "licky" pasted together concepts that make it based on triads, and little else, unless you work yout a** off like a lunatic to get more out of it that just triads. And putting a D in the middle changes the spirit of the tuning. And even though it adds a major scale note, unless you are willing to find a technical way to skip the note when doing sweeping chords, it will get in the way. At least when the D note was added to the TOP of the tuning, it wasn't in the way. That's how you should do it. If you want to add a middle D note, put it on the 10th string. Then you have the best of both worlds. |
|
Bobby Lee Sysop Posts: 14849 |
posted 06 February 2002 09:19 AM
Well, I still respectfully disagree with you, Jeff. I've always viewed E9th from a music theory standpoint. It is designed to maximize smooth transitions between triads. It is designed to provide many straight bar positions for the diatonic scale, and to provide as many triad inversions as possible. Scale-based melodies over triads are the music theory that country music is based on. Maybe you see the tuning as "lick" based because country licks are often scale gymnastics over triads. Don't overlook the fact that many music forms are based on that same theoretical formula. Music theory is not just jazz chords. Andrew's original tuning at the top of this post is an attempt to make sense of the unusual string order of the E9th. The changes are still the E9th changes - he just thinks that putting the strings in linear order will make it easier to understand. In a way, he's right. But this "straightened out" tuning is actually harder to play than E9th. You have to be much more careful about which string you pick. You have to be more careful about the back of your pick hitting adjacent strings. You have to block sympathetic vibrations when two strings are sounding the same note. Most beginners barely touch the top two strings in their first year of playing. The E9th is friendly to beginners by placing that fat major chord all together. If they hit the wrong string, it still sounds okay. The E9th is the most "beginner friendly" pedal steel tuning. I started on a linear tuning like Andrew's, though. After 4 years I switched to E9th because I needed to work. The music theory behind the tuning was the same, but the finger patterns were different. Those E9th patterns ("licks") are part of what defines the country style. They are based on the combination of solid music theory plus the ergonomics of out-of-order strings. When the natural finger movements are applied to a linear tuning, you don't get "that Nashville sound". The phrasing swings and rocks better. Too much rock steel sounds 'countrified' by the E9th approach, IMHO. The Sacred Steelers don't sound country, though, even though they have similar A, B and F pedals. The string order does make a difference. ------------------ |
|
Jeff Lampert Member Posts: 2636 |
posted 06 February 2002 09:47 AM
quote: As long as you still love me. |
|
bob grossman Member Posts: 420 |
posted 06 February 2002 09:50 AM
I think the E9th was an outgrowth of the E13th tuning, which wouldn't be a 13th w/o the D. Someone added an E note between the F# and D (Mr. Day?). Anyone? Also, many years ago a Mr. Barr Hibbs asked why we called the Bb 6th "universal". He was looking at it from a musical standpoint and I explained that it was the two popular setups combined that led to the term "universal". Barr was thinking of a tuning that would be really universal - pedals and KL's provide the notes in between. Do we have another musical misnomer - like "chromatics"? |
|
Bobby Lee Sysop Posts: 14849 |
posted 06 February 2002 10:25 AM
Yes, the "chromatic" strings are mis-named. Chromatic notes are the notes outside of the scale. The first two strings are scale notes. Maybe "diatonics" would be a better descriptor. Jeff, we've got to stop meeting like this.  ------------------ |
|
Jerry Hayes Member Posts: 3306 |
posted 06 February 2002 12:33 PM
Hey Andrew, If you want some examples of what can be done with a tuning like yours, just find some recordings of the late Zane Beck. He had some students who played his tuning as well, most notably Zane King. ZK's stuff is mostly in the gospel field although I think he has a website. He used a 12 string with 4 floor pedals and 5 knee levers. His tuning went like this from low to high: B E G# B D F# G# B C# E F# G# As you can see it's a true E13th with some added strings. I think he called it an E9/6 or something like that. If you've got a copy of Winnie Winston's book all the pedal changes are in there. Just about anything you want to play is on this tuning. I heard Zane King at Scotty's one year and he was playing up tempo blazing single string stuff like Doug Jernigan plays. He and Zane Beck both could make it cry like an E9 or swing like C6th. ------------------ |
|
Donny Hinson Member Posts: 9192 |
posted 06 February 2002 03:25 PM
Andrew, like you (and a few other players), I tried my own "logical tuning" for about 6 months. You see, I came off of playing lead guitar for a few years, and lap-steel for about 6 months, so I "rearranged" the tuning on my first pedal guitar, (which seemed unfathomable, at the time) and played a triad-based D major 7th tuning. Luckily, a very young Stu Basore came to the area, and spent the day at my house showing me what my tuning could do, and what it couldn't! Of course, there are people who say that the standard "inside-out" (as I used to call it) E9th tuning isn't good for "sweep chords", big band music, and so forth. But this isn't what the pedal steel (as we have come to know it) was designed to do. If you want to play this type of stuff, there are other instruments (like the guitar and harp) which work better, as well as other tunings (such as the C6th) that have been tried and refined by the best. In the end, you'll wind up doing what you want to do, anyway. But what I'm driving at is that an awful lot of talented people have contributed to the tuning as it is today, and if it weren't "musically practical", it would have probably been dropped long ago. There are, and have been, thousands of steelplayers...but only a very, very few have found success by bucking the general trends. That's my 2cents worth. |
|
Tom Gorr Member Posts: 282 |
posted 06 February 2002 07:10 PM
Diatonic Strings? I believe diatonic is a better description than "chromatic". The implicit assumption, however, is that home base=no pedals. This mental picture creates a significantly different musical approach than if home base=A+B. In that case, you may believe that S2, at least, is "chromatic". Individualized tunings? I think licks and styles grow from what is ergonomically convenient on a particular instrument. Proof: A+B=cliche. From this perspective, E9 is a different instrument from C6. As an analogy - guitarist Keith Richards played an open "G" tuning , which probably gave the Rolling Stones the "edge" that distinguished them from the more cliche rock style that naturally spews from a standard E tuning. How else does one explain their success?? |
|
Donny Hinson Member Posts: 9192 |
posted 07 February 2002 04:35 AM
I guess Mick had nothing to do with it? Right...Tom? |
|
Tom Gorr Member Posts: 282 |
posted 07 February 2002 07:29 PM
No offense to the Stones at all - the post was intended to build on the superb analysis of Bobby Lee. I think the answer depends on musical objectives. The steel guitar is far from being a 'musically neutral' instrument - you just can't help but play certain patterns, no matter how hard you try not to. The customization of the instrument is such a fascinating angle. Combine a custom tuning with 'deterministic ergonomics'(ouch!), and one could build a totally new musical genre. You just can't go and do that stuff to a trumpet, piano, or flute. As Andrew put it so well - "it sure doesn't hurt to change the external reality". First we take Rome.... |
| This topic is 2 pages long: 1 2 All times are Pacific (US) | This is an ARCHIVED topic. You may not reply to it! |
Note: Messages not explicitly copyrighted are in the Public Domain.
Ultimate Bulletin Board 5.46
Our mailing address is:
The Steel Guitar Forum
148 South Cloverdale Blvd.
Cloverdale, CA 95425 USA
Support the Forum
Bobby Lee - email: