The Opry was a gig, a paying job (a poor one, but paid all the same) and as such they had the right and sense to hire and fire who they thought was up to the job.
The Hankster was a hopeless drunk by the time he got the boot, and Bob Wills was too good for the Opry anyway.

But let's make it simple. The Opry was a job, all you had to do was show up and perform and be respectable. Some people couldn't manage that, they got canned.

The HOF, a place of recognition, history and significance where someone involved in the industry and of note can get nominated for a place in the HOF. It's not a job, and unlike the Opry it can be posthumous.

------------------
James R.Hall
MSA S10 & MSA D12

[This message was edited by retcop88 on 05 November 2004 at 07:10 AM.]

That drunk fellow that you make reference to that could not keep his "paying job" as you call the Grand Old Opry----he was inducted into the Country Music Hall of Fame the first year it began. I guess the Board Members of the CMHOF need to go and get some of the members of the SGHOF to straighten all that out.

Hank in the CMHOF is a perfect example of a man recognized for his talent and his contribution and not discriminated against for his personal problems of which he had many.

Well Smike,Smirk or schmuck.

james -

your antipathy towards bradshaw, the hof, and my posts not-withstanding, my name is bruce... and name-calling is disrespectful, against forum policies, and indicative of a weak argument.

bruce
aka smike

[This message was edited by smike on 05 November 2004 at 07:10 AM.]

If we take apart and reveal the lives of many that are installed in the SGHOF there would be much for the saint worshipers to carp about; same goes for my life, and maybe yours, and possibly/probably some of those that decide who goes into whichever HOF.

We might start down the list of the famous classical musicians/composers and find that applying moralistic judgements would get many/most of them rejected from any HOF; their music speaks for their talent, not their behavior.

Again, institutions and organizations can set any standards by which to judge membership in any of it's branches and the verbage of said rules will be interpreted by the individuals on the judging commitees according to their preferred point of view. The SGHOF is no different, ..just people.

Your last line is interesting, ..it appears that you have decided, by some mysterious criterion, which side of the issue I am on, and have applied what you deem as appropriate labels. A bit presumptious on your part as I am on neither side; as I said, I have my own HOF for Steel players/designers/makers.

Nice fencing words with you mate, have a nice day.

[This message was edited by ed packard on 05 November 2004 at 07:10 AM.]

------------------
James R.Hall
MSA S10 & MSA D12

Bill Hatcher says:OK Tom. You accused me of being dishonest in an email to me and I take GREAT offense in you doing so.... Since you refused to answer the last email I sent you and in essence declared that you would not discuss this issue with me anymore then I will state my case here and let the chips fall where they may.

bill -

nothing good comes from taking things said in private emails (or snail mails) public... you're posting another person's words without their permission, and airing your dirty laundry for the world to see... and discuss.

you make it sound like tom OWES you an on-going discussion of your issues... and then forced the issue by posting publicly.

since you opened the pandora's box, let's review.

you said tom called you dishonest. without re-posting his post in its entirety, it's hard to tell just what was said. you took 'GREAT' offense... so what? are you really saying "mommy, he called me a liar... make him stop!!!"? what do you care what ANYBODY calls you? or that they won't respond to you after you have a falling out without them?

if the forum weren't here, you wouldn't have been able to do anything about it... lucky us.

i read bradshaw's post correcting your mis-statements... and thought he went point by point, and those points had a lot more weight than your suppositions and theories...

did you ever share a hotel room with julian? go drinking with him? sit around playing with him? know his friends, his peers, his business dealings? bradshaw did, and i think you might want to go with less ego, and more respect for the guy who wrote the steel guitar column in guitar player magazine, published steel guitar magazine, has sat on the hall of fame board for decades, and knows of what he speaks.

you are welcome to your opinions, and bradshaw is welcome to his... the difference between you, though, is that he kept his private... at least until you opened the door (i.e., pandora's box)... just like maurice did about his own hof problem.

the lesson is clearly that nothing good comes from airing private issues publicly.

bruce

[This message was edited by smike on 05 November 2004 at 07:13 AM.]

------------------
Derby D-10 3+4 Les Paul Custom.

Should a player be kept out of the SGHOF solely because of his indescretions. That is what this is all about, not whether or not Tom accused me of dishonesty.

Having an opinion and expressing it has nothing to do with being dishonest. I based my opinions on information I received and after I made the opening post inviting a discussion of the issue then I get this email from Tom accusing me of being dishonest and some other goofy word when I emailed him back with the quotes that formed the basis of my initial post. Before I made this post, everything was just fine with him.

I don't have to have a close relationship with ANY HOF member or candidate. Once again---listen closely---

THE ISSUE IS WHETHER OR NOT THE MEMBERS OF THE HOF BOARD SHOULD DENY MEMBERSHIP TO A CANDIDATE WHO QUALIFIES MUSICALLY BUT DOES NOT MEET "THEIR" PERSONAL QUALIFICATIONS IN REGARDS TO THE CANDIDATES PERSONAL LIFE CHOICES.

The fact the Tom Bradshaw wrote articles and is a member of the HOF board means nothing to me. The selection issue is what means something and you can see by the interest here that it means something to a lot of folks. Every year this comes up and a few things get said and then everybody forgets about it because no one really knows the REAL reason behind why this man, or ANY other deserving candidate is not in the HOF.

You can say whatever you want to about me, I don't give a crap. You say in your post that someone making a remark about your "smike" name is disrespectful but then you use a snide comment of "mommy,liar" towards me and that is just fine with you right?? You get to have it BOTH ways right?

Bruce, just what kind of hof problem did Maurice Anderson ever have? Not a hof problem at all, but one of character assassination in the media. Of all the posts I've read that Reece has made, never, not one time did he ever refer to his induction to the hof as being one of his desires. (As a point of interest, he might find it hard to even accept an induction, but he can speak for himself).

He did take offense at being blind sided by one of his supposedly (sic) friends who almost single handedly destroyed his reputation.

The term "victims" continuously was brought up in the correspondence. What victims? There were no victims as was finally revealed by Bradshaw in his public statement here on the Forum. Why did he make that a public statement, probably because of civil litigation, and you and most of the folks on this Forum are aware there was one.

With Bradshaw's public statement, he absolved Reece, all MSA execs, etc of any wrong doing. Do you think he made that statement and didn't mean what he wrote? In other words I think Tom lost the argument and this was probably one of the items in the out of court settlement. What do you think?

Too, most of the Forum participants, who are not informed, think that Reece was the instigator of the lawsuit. I'm sure he was the plaintiff, but I know for a fact he didn't want to sue anyone. I have in my possession an email from Tom Bradshaw to Reece Anderson, with a cc. to me, where Tom not only asks Reece to put him in court, but in my opinion, begs Reece to do so. He got his wish, but only after Reece tried everything possible to keep from doing that. These are the facts, and everyone should know them.

I'm really tired of seeing this situation brought back up for a dirty laundry air out, and that's the only reason for this post. If you don't have the truth, and present it as fact, you, like some other folks, might have some black feathers sticking out of your mouth.

Nuff said and I'm through with this publicly. You want to carry it on, send me an email. IMHO Julian Tharpe, Reece Anderson and several more should be inducted into a real steel guitar hall of fame

fred

------------------
The spirit be with you!
If it aint got a steel, it aint real

Yeah, my point exactly.

Cripes, I don't go to any awards, I don't watch any, and they have relatively little bearing on my life.
However, this whole thing kicked off with someone griping about the injustice of it all.
Fair enough, if you don't like the current way things are going then perhaps those interested can make a submission with a whole new set of criteria for the HOF, although it woulf have to be a proper report to be taken with any level of seriousness.
It would take a subtle and numble individual with organisational skills, and I reckon there'd be more than a few qualified people of the HOF.

Ed Packard, I still think you might find that your example, eg: "Hank Williams, Bob Wills, were kept off the Grand Ol' Opry," have next to no bearing here.

Now, if you had originally posted that hey, despite being characters with some questionable lifestyle choices (of course you might say that being an alchaholic is a disease not a choice) Bob Wills and Hank Williams are in the country HOF.

But that's not what you wrote, so don't go around getting all high and mighty on that one guys.
If someone had started comparing the different criteria of various Halls of Fame, then this would have been a rather different discussion from the get go, rather than the grubby little witch hunt it descended into.

Although when Bill starts off the topic with a reasonable intro, then descends into an attack on Scotty, this had to happen.
Sorry guys, but you took so long to get to the point.
Why didn't you use the comparitive thing from the start Bill?, if you want the HOF to be like every other one it would have been nice if you'd made that point.

Yeah, I'm out to destroy all things sacred in country music, that's it Bill, good on you mate.

We've all digressed, and everyone's starting to spend more time (including me) remarking on what may or may not have been said about them.

Maybe a new topic with the theme, Why isn't our HOF using the criteria of all other HOFs that we can think of?.. example pending.

well, you could of fooled me... your posts sure made it sound like it WAS about tom accusing you of dishonesty.

my answer to your questions is: yes... as long as you acknowledge that 'indiscretions' includes ripping off people.

> You can say whatever you want to about me, I don't give a crap. You say in your post that someone making a remark about your "smike" name is disrespectful but then you use a snide comment of "mommy,liar" towards me and that is just fine with you right?? You get to have it BOTH ways right?

bill -

james (who has since edited his post.. thank you) called me a schmuck... at its nicest, 'schmuck' means a fool... but in german it means (literally) 'decoration'; it morphed over time in yiddish into meaning the male genitalia, i.e., he was calling me a 'dick'...

that was a direct, PUBLIC personal insult... not just a disrespectful remark about my name. you really can't tell the difference?

> because no one really knows the REAL reason behind why this man, or ANY other deserving candidate is not in the HOF

there are TWO issues for me... hof standards, and responding to those who continue to ignore facts offered by those who DO know the real reasons why 'deserving' candidates are not inducted into the hof.

you are not the one who defines 'deserving', even if you have strong emotional investments in certain candidates... which means you are just stating (and re-stating) your opinion(s), with no real hope of changing anything.

whatever.

bruce

[This message was edited by smike on 05 November 2004 at 08:22 PM.]

Nobody will say why Julian Tharpe hasn't made the HOF. Not publically anyhow.

My guess?

I dunno.

Did he ever sue any other steel players for a million bucks?

I have other things to worry about.

My observation over the past few years on this Forum and according to the opinion of my mentor who you all know is a solid and positive opinion that I have to offer.

After listening to this gentlemans music and hearing the positive comments from my friend
and mentor, I agree wholeheartedly that Mr.
Maurice Anderson should be inducted into the Steel Guitar Hall Of Fame.

Shame on those who keep him from what is due
this great musician.

Great players are acknowledged for their talent and nothing else and those who keep Mr. Anderson from this honor should be ashamed.

Are those who keep him from being inducted keeping something from this Forum? It is they
who are guilty of keeping a talent such as this man from being honored. If it were me in his position I would want no part of being
inducted after all the time and waste that I have read on this subject.

I may not be a steel player as such,but I am
a human being and there is something really wrong somewhere and those know who and where
that somewhere is.

Greg Sullivan

[This message was edited by Greg Sullivan on 06 November 2004 at 06:10 PM.]

My observation over the past few years on this Forum and according to the opinion of my mentor who you all know is a solid and positive opinion that I have to offer.

After listening to this gentlemans music and hearing the positive comments from my friend
and mentor, I agree wholeheartedly that Mr.
Maurice Anderson should be inducted into the Steel Guitar Hall Of Fame.

Shame on those who keep him from what is due
this great musician.

Great players are acknowledged for their talent and nothing else and those who keep Mr. Anderson from this honor should be ashamed.

Are those who keep him from being inducted keeping something from this Forum? Why do those who keep this man from being inducted come forth and show their faces? or are they hiding in the shadows of GUILT.?

Accidently I have posted my comments 2 times
I will not ask to be edited,maybe those who are ignorant to the facts of life will read my comments twice and hopefully it will sink
in.

This is redundant and sickening.

Mr Anderson..Sir you are a bigger man than those who judge you.Let he who is without sin & guilt cast the first stone. Im waiting. I doubt they who are the guilty will surface from their hiding places.

[This message was edited by Greg Sullivan on 06 November 2004 at 07:38 PM.]

In reading Fred's current postings, it now appears that he
wishes to assist again. He is asking for public disclosure
of all of the known depositors. I have sent him a list of
them. I am hoping that he will again show the concern he
did for Dave Tunnicliffe and Ken Harrington by conducting
another inquiry that will hopefully lead to the current MSA
firm providing all the remaining compensation to all those
remaining depositors, compensation they expressed a
willingness to provide over 2 years ago.

If others wish to have the information regarding the
identities of those old depositors, and perhaps help in the
recovery of their deposits, that would be commendable also.
Just ask for the list from me. I also have a summary of
my history with the old MSA firm in my advocacy in behalf
of all those depositors. For those wishing to know that
history, just drop me an email request and I will supply
that information. Again Fred, here in New Zealand you are
our hero.

Now.

What'd Julian do?

quote:

---

SGHOF-Julian Tharpe-never nominated?!?!? - Original Post-

---

I'm getting more curious..

Only the living still have time to make things right.

Jesus saves souls, not reputations.

So be it.

Christians aren't perfect. Just forgiven from the almighty, and guaranteed to avoid eternal damnation.

In the meantime, we are all responsible for our own reputations.

Just my take.

It is clear that there are members of the board who as one has stated here that he could NEVER vote for Julian Tharpe because of a personal past relationship . As I stated in the opening to this thread the board members forgiving Tharpe would be the right thing to do. Morally and spiritually this is the right thing to do. To REFUSE to do this is a direct reflection on the moral and spiritual attitude of a person. To refuse to recuse himself from the voting process is also not right.

If this is what a board member on the HOF decides to do then there is not much we as the steel guitar community can do, as we are not included in the voting process, ONLY the nomination process. This is also what I alluded to in my opening post--that the HOF board is the only deciding body and in doing so elects the candidates that only THEY see fit.

The HOF board makes reference to a "steel community" but in its actions it negates the very spirit of that community by not allowing it to fully participate in the HOF process.

I personally believe that the steel community as a whole reflects a spirit of incredible positivity. I don't believe that the members of this community would continue to kick a fellow player when he was down or after he had passed.

"forgive us our trespasses as we forgive those who trespass against us"--that's the spiritual basis of my opinion.

[This message was edited by Bill Hatcher on 08 November 2004 at 07:09 AM.]

Only if your personal relationship with a player makes it such that you cannot make an impartial vote. Just because a board member "knows" a candidate that is not a reason for recusement. When you have been in a business dealing gone wrong, or a personal feud, with the candidate or member in question, then that is when you are recused from the board meeting and the rest of the impartial members make the decision. In situations of recusement, the board member usually is included in the discussions of the circumstanses. His opinions are heard and are taken into consideration by other members. In instances where the circumstances are ongoing, the board member is recused before any discussions occur.

The new company that was formed in 2002 had no responsibility for any matters concerning that former company. Nonetheless, because we wanted to, the principals of the new company sought out and made mutually satisfactory arrangements with those respondents who had (1) deposited funds with the former company but who did not receive a guitar as a result of that company discontinuing operations, and (2)conformed to the simple rules of the process known as the RESOLUTION Process. That formal process was concluded quite some time ago. The process was carried out by the principals of the new MSA.

As you know, sometime in the past few days Tom Bradshaw forwarded your “information” to Fred along with your suggestion that Fred post it on the Forum. I have no idea why you tried to prevail on Fred to become complicit in your nefarious scheme. In fact, as you know, he inquired as much of you and Tom Bradshaw.

I'm sure you know by Fred's reply that he has no intention of posting your “information” on the Forum. Your post on here is seemingly merely another one of your attempts to cause mischief and, apparently this time, to also embarrass Fred because he wouldn’t go along with your scheme.

Simply put, the “information” of which I have a copy and which you propose to provide to requestors is riddled with falsehoods. In a recent previous set of "information" you have sent to many people you indicate that we compensated only three people and detail how you believe those people were compensated due to your influence. You haven't had anything to do with anyone receiving anything.

Your recent writing still suggests that only three were compensated. That is simply false. You note that we dropped one person from the process. It is true that one person was irrevocably dropped from the RESOLUTION process because he apparently preferred to make defamatory remarks about the new company and its owners rather than receive compensation. We provided that information on this Forum over a year ago.

When we concluded the RESOLUTION process we neither asked anyone to make any public comment nor asked anyone to refrain from doing so. Further, we made no agreement that we would refrain from disclosing the results- though we have had no
intention to do so. We have believed that anyone who wished to say anything would, and those that didn't presumably preferred that their involvement was kept private. The mere fact that people won’t confide in you, if they won’t, is no evidence of anything except, perhaps, that they don’t want to confide in you.

It is noteworthy to mention that anytime the Steel Guitar Hall of Fame becomes a subject of discussion; you come slinking around with your false "information" so as to attempt to discredit Reece. You simply want to keep him from being inducted and you will apparently make up any "information" to further your case. Insofar as I know, he rarely, if ever, talks about the HOF but my guess is that you would have a much more difficult time trying to drag him into the Hall of Fame than the considerable effort you have expended in keeping him out.

In any event, as I noted above, we maintain that a huge portion of the "information" you wish to pass out to Forum members and others is false "information."

So, we have a proposition for you. If you really believe the "information" that you are passing out, you can prove the veracity of your information to this Forum and to others. We don't have any interest in divulging data about those who participated in the RESOLUTION if they haven't chosen to divulge it themselves. However, if there is some overarching good to be achieved, we are not restricted from doing so.

We propose that if you have the courage of your convictions you can make your point once and for all. We can have a mediation of sorts. The current MSA principals will put up an amount; we'll say a minimum of $50,000. We will place that money in a national bank in Dallas in an escrow account. You and yours can deposit a like amount in such account. We will select a licensed mediator who will examine your “information” and the facts that we provide and who will determine whether or not your information contains misstatements of fact.

We will allege that your information contains misstatements of fact particularly as it relates to those who were or weren’t compensated and with whom accords were reached in the RESOLUTION Process. (As I mentioned, we have a copy of your recent writings and those will be the basis of the mediation.) You and your collaborators, if any exist, can take the position that all of that which you have written in that writing is true. You can get anyone who believes you to put up some of the funds and join you. I doubt if you’ll get many takers, but if you can, so be it. As a matter of fairness, I caution others to be careful about joining you since I know your “information” contains missatements of fact.

If the mediator determines that we are correct that your “information” contains misstatements of fact, then he or she will return to us the amount we put in escrow and award to us the amount you placed in escrow. Conversely, if the mediator concludes that your “information” does not contain misstatements of fact, he or she can return your escrow money and award to you the money we escrowed. The result can be made subject to appeal in a court of competent jurisdiction.

Should we be the “winner,” we will donate to this Forum 50% of the amount awarded to us, and 25% of the amount awarded to us will be put in a fund to go to a charity selected by the members of this Forum. The fund can be administered by whomever this Forum chooses. If it is determined by the mediator that your "information" is all true and accurate, you can do whatever you want with any money awarded to you by the mediator. The “loser” will pay the mediator’s fees.

Now, here is your chance to prove to the world that what you say is true and to get rich in the process. Our guess is that you don't have the testicularity to agree to such an arrangement. But, if you are willing, we can immediately proceed to make the necessary arrangements. If you are unwilling, that should serve to speak volumes about you and your motives.

quote:

---

Should we be the “winner,” we will donate to this Forum 50% of the amount awarded to us, and 25% of the amount awarded to us will be put in a fund to go to a charity selected by the members of this Forum. The fund can be administered by whomever this Forum chooses.

---

------------------
               Bobby Lee
-b0b-   quasar@b0b.com
 System Administrator

[This message was edited by b0b on 08 November 2004 at 10:43 AM.]

P.S. The reference to Dallas in my previous post refers to Dallas, Texas, USA.

b0b,

We didn't intend to involve you other than as a beneficiary. Additionally, we thought that certain members, on their own, might be interested in administering a fund But, if you are uncomfortable with that, we completely respect your position and this post simply modifies the foregoing to say that we would donate the amount that would have gone to the Forum as noted above to a charitable cause instead.

Dave Horner
MSA

Maybe the jury analogy was not the best route on my part since you are correct in that both + and - get you thrown off, but you have to take under consideration that there are two parties involved with jury selection, the plantiff AND the defendent. A plus for one is a minus for the other and vice versa.

------------------
http://www.johnmcgann.com
Info for musicians, transcribers, technique tips and fun stuff.

Joaquin Murphey solos book info and some free stuff : http://www.johnmcgann.com/joaquin.html

[This message was edited by John McGann on 08 November 2004 at 12:27 PM.]

My first post was made because of some questions relative to whether Julian had been nominated or not. I am personally knowledgeable of Julian Tharpe's being formally nominated in accordance with the SGHOF's posted rules. I did so.

That was all I wanted to say about it because I already had knowledge of the reason Julian has not been inducted. I have a copy of the email sent by Mr. Bradshaw to an individual stating exactly why.

My second post was made only after a post by Mr. Bradshaw saying "Julian Tharpe has never been "formally" nominated." I knew better.

It was evident my posts weren't taken seriously because later Bobby Lee posts, "It's my understanding that Julian Tharpe has never been nominated."

I posted again only after Paul Franklin's eloquent entry and one of his quotes stated, "I would submit, in a heart beat, a nomination for Reece and Julian if I believed it would ever see the light of day. The board can always nominate from within itself." I thought this and Tommy White's query about "victimization" were very pertinent to the discussion and on target as to rationale.

I was not taken aback when I read Smike's--Bruce's statements when he brings up such items as, "I bet most of the 'tharpe/reece/whoever' conspiracy claimers aren't even familiar with most of the people who ARE in the SGHOF... nor do they know the reasons those folks were so honored." This is one of his typical "shotgun blasts" he is famous for each time the HOF induction process comes up for discussion. A search of his name vs. his posts on the Forum will provide you with that answer. I overlooked it, without comment, again. But with his later comment in another post he says,"you are welcome to your opinions, and Bradshaw is welcome to his... the difference between you, though, is that he kept his private... at least until you opened the door (i.e., pandora's box)... just like Maurice did about his own hof problem," and there was no caution relative to topic maintenance, nor personal discredit issued from anyone in the Forum, I took it on myself to set the record straight again. I make note here that Smike, Bruce or whoever he is did not answer one single item of my post. Special notice, I will take offense every single time items like this are brought up denigrating a player without proof of wrongdoing.

I also am amazed that no other Board member, other than Bradshaw ever sees fit to enter a discussion about HOF inductees.

Sometime after my last post I received an email from Tom Bradshaw saying because Jim Molberg had tried to get in touch with me but his, Jim's, ISP server was preventing it, he Bradshaw was forwarding it. I marvelled at Jim's capability of reading the Forum posts but was astounded that he couldn't reach me by email, because I have over 40 emails I received during that time frame, relative to the guitar sale for donation of funds to a deserving player.

Attached to that email from Tom was a "Plethora" (love that word) of folks he thinks I didn't contact in some research I did for an article I was writing for a magazine contract. I suspected the crap was gonna' hit the fan again, so I took the liberty of sharing it with my good friends at MSA. And they are my good friends and I'm damn proud to say that. That, perhaps, just might have had "something" to do with Mr. Horner's post, I certainly hope so.

Jim Molberg's post crediting me with being a "hero in New Zealand" is the biggest joke ever posted on this forum in my opinion. I could care less about New Zealand except to wish the people there all the luck in the world if someone attacks them. They might be glad to see one of our Nuclear Subs then.

Further, for Mr. Molberg's information I have never spoken or corresponded with Mr. Tunnicliffe in any way shape or form. I did have a conversation with the man Molberg mentions in Worthan Texas, but it's really not Wortham but Waxahachie, Texas. Hell, Jim You even got that wrong. This was the man that told me he had a "cancelled check" that proved he had not received his guitar from MSA. He also told me he had not received any stock as a good faith jesture and not for repayment of the funds, and in his next breath said, "My wife had the stock checked out with a broker and the damned stuff is worthless." Did he really say that? It's for certain he did, I have it on tape. Bad habit I have, you know. BTW Jim I notice your website has a picture of you playing a MSA. Buy that second hand, did you? None of my business of course, I'm just being sarcastic and funny. Don't you think that's hilarious?

However I am just sick and tired of all the sniping and back biting that has transpired from MSA's restitution process. If you ain't got a dog in the hunt it might be best you just "listen" like a lot of us have done, and only bark if you're tail is stepped on.

Too, as some of you might or not be aware, I earned my living for some years as a professional journalist in the Dallas area. Many times, as a very active investigative reporter I was forced to use a pseudonym for self protection, primarily because I was on the "Scum Beat" with trips to such sophisticated places such as Columbia, Bosnia, and the land of entertainment Somalia. I later became the Senior Columnist for a Dallas area newspaper.

My first dealings I ever had with the SGHOF had to do with Fund Raisers--for which I gladly participated, steel shows, etc. Later I contracted to write a piece for a well known magazine which led me to the MSA fracas. My long time personal friendship with Reece Anderson brought me to him for information on the PSG development. Only after an extended period of time did I find he was not a member of the HOF and I was astounded, considering his standing as a player, teacher, and manufacturer in the steel guitar community.

In short, subsequent to being made aware of this, I started a research into several items surrounding the SGHOF, the induction process being one of them. Because of the failure for some folks to step up to the plate and swing the bat, I feel it necessary to provide some of the pertinent documents exchanged during that research to a website for any and everyone to read, digest, and puke out if you don't like them. Therefore, I'll contract a builder and have a website constructed and provide a chronological sequence of pertinent events for which I have a record. Not meant to hurt anyone, but to show the "real facts" as I found them. There will be very little opinion stated by me, but there will be reams of documents accumulated by me during that time frame. You can read them, cuss them, email me with questions, arrive at any conclusions you wish or tell Aunt Nellie about it, but I will not answer any flames. Depend on it.

Julian Tharpe, man that he was, was a personal friend of mine and regardless what someone alleges, he always was straight up with me and I feel he never shirked his duty as a steel guitar impressario. You can say what you want, but his steel guitar entrepeneurship was immaculate. That's damned sure on topic. Nuff said.

fred

.

------------------
The spirit be with you!
If it aint got a steel, it aint real

quote:

---

It was evident my posts weren't taken seriously because later Bobby Lee posts, "It's my understanding that Julian Tharpe has never been nominated."

---

quote:

---

Julian Tharpe has never been "formally" nominated. That requires documentation of his accomplishments and contributions as detailed on the HOF's web site.

---

------------------
The spirit be with you!
If it aint got a steel, it aint real

February 25, 2003

Subject: Julian Tharpe's Formal Nomination to the Steel Guitar Hall of Fame

Julian, until his tragic demise, had been a long time entrepeneur of the pedal steel guitar. His futuristic innovations both of the tuning and of the physical makeup of the guitar itself are widely known and appreciated.

He played with such recording greats as Ray Price, Barbara Mandrell and many others too numerous to mention. His performances on the psg were mind boggling and culminated with standing ovations on many of his lead rides. One of his appearance with Ray Price in the Astrodome is indicative of his capability. Over 7,000 people stood and applauded his instrumental act there. I witnessed this.

Julian, along with Reece Anderson, was very instrumental in the development of the Universal tuning we now use on pedal steel. Although Reece's tuning is more 'calm', for lack of a better word, than Julian's, one can see the similiarity of the two. That is understandable because of Julian's efforts in the MSA factory and his close friendship with Reece. Julian's tuning and guitar setup included 14 strings and at one time he had 22 pedals on the guitar.

Julian has recorded at least five (5) LP's of which I am aware. They include:
1. Deep Feelings
2. Southern Fried Steel
3. The Jet Age
4. Take Your Pick
5. 12 + 14 = Country Jazz with Zane Beck
These are the only 5 I have, there could possibly be more.

Julian, as an instructor, was very patient with me and others who studied under him in Dallas. I'm certain Billy Phelps and possibly a gent named McHam (sic) were studying at the same time I was there. I don't know how many more students he had. He was an expert in the E9 and C6 tunings, and he was very articulate in the Universal tuning he had developed. I, along with many others, still use a version of that tuning.

Julian was also part of the Branson's Baldknobbers (sic) show in Branson Missouri. It was one of the first theaters that opened in that city. I cannot tell you how long he participated in that show, but he's listed in the lobby as part of the "first casts" that was there.

On March 3, 1976 I attended a Nashville jam session, in which a LP was supposed to be made (I never saw a copy of it) that Jimmy Bryant and others produced. I believe it was called "The First Time". He performed, along with bassist Henry Strzlecki (sic), drummer Louis Bellson, and I believe the sax player was a gentleman named Gore, and the steel players invited included Speedy West, Julian, Day, Hal Rugg, Reece Anderson, L. Green, Chalker, Doug Jernigan, and possibly one other. This was probably the first time that many "name steel players" were ever in one place at one time. When Julian finished his set, every person in the studio stood and applauded. That never happened but the one time. A tribute to a great talent by his peers.

This is my third attempt to have Julian's name placed in nomination for the Steel Guitar Hall of fame and I consider it a privilege to do so. He was an outstanding player, a teacher of the instrument, and provided the steel guitar community another path for tuning possibilities. Although he's passed on, his legacy has left many with fond memories, and thoughtful aspirations. Julian Tharpe, along with many others, belong in the Steel Guitar Hall of Fame. Your consideration is welcomed.

Fred Shannon
6716 East Robinson Rd
Big Spring, Texas, 79720
Tel no--915-263-2213
email: fjshan@crcom.net

------------------
The spirit be with you!
If it aint got a steel, it aint real