EJL

[This message was edited by Eric West on 30 April 2005 at 04:40 PM.]

Congratulations. Your posts about the tuning differences between JI and ET tempermant are right on the mark. Hopefully this will clarify a choice of direction for some confused players.

Eric,

I believe you are overlooking Buddy's main statement on this subject. Buddy stated that the reason he began tuning to ET was for his desire to be able to use ALL of the possible string groupings and NOT have to avoid specific groupings on his E9th copedant like he did when he tuned to JI.

Buddy DID NOT abandon the JI direction because his playing was sounding out with the band. To hear his JI tuning listen to the Black album and all of those classic Price cuts. To hear his ET tuning listen to his Christmas CD. Buddy's entire body of work proves that players can sound in tune with the band whether tuning to JI or ET. No matter which method Buddy uses, his single note and chord playing always sounds great and blends perfectly with the other instruments. Buddy has developed his ears to always hear the center pitch of the bands chord.

Jeff Beck did a session a few years back and the studio story goes something like this. When Jeff arrived he was in a hurry so he picked up his guitar, turned his rig on and said roll the tape without tweaking any of his strings to any tuner. After a few takes Jeff said I think that's got it. Not only was the part brilliant but so was his pitch with the band. Jeff is known for using a whammy bar like no other and stretching strings which is how he managed to get every note he played to pitch. His ears, like Buddy's, are so refined to hearing the center pitch of the band that no matter how the instrument is tuned they can play correctly in tune.

Donny,

Playing in tune in the past or present has more to do with how well the player hears the center pitch of the bands chord and not to which direction they tune their instruments. Yesterday we recut "I'm Not Lisa". We were amazed that the original overall record sounds basically in tune yet after listening closely the keyboards were way out of tune and the guitars were somewhere close. This made the spread of the center pitch of the bands chord to be wider than it was on our version. Both our keyboards and guitars were so in tune it almost sounded as if they were one instrument. That leaves the steel and the other surface instruments very little ice to skate on.

Because of the perfect options folks seem to desire for making records these days. The steel and fiddles are more likely to be noticed as being a little out on more occasions than you might have noticed if the rhythm sections tuned as loosely as they used to back when..

When we listen to older records we are hearing a collective group producers and musicians that were content with the sound of instruments closely in tune, NOT perfectly in tune as is the direction these days.

Thanks.

That's what I got out of it. I read studiously all of Mr E's comments on the threads he participated in here.

For me, playing the kinds of jobs I play with the instruments I play with, using a non JI tuning puts me as close as I need to be. I've played it that way for so many years that my ears aren't thrown off by a few extra beats on chords that are blending with other intonations on the instruments. Not at stage volumes anyhow. Recording, I do less of, and find it is as has been stated, a blend. Sometimes it works better than others. Mostly centered around tuners, now that strangely tuned stringed pianos aren't used that much in the limited recording that I do which happened when I recorded with things like Mini Grands, and Helpenstills.

Besides, I figure if somebody can tune 9-15 cents flat from other instruments and still sound in tune, then I'm home free too..

On the other hand, suppose things are slightly out of tune. Label these distinct frequencies f1 and f2, which are now mixed together. Then there is a well-known beat frequency generated at the frequency of the difference between the two frequencies divided by two, which can be viewed as modulating (multiplying) a signal which is the at the average of the two frequencies. The difference sine-wave is known as the envelope of the signal. This arises from the trigonometric sum formula (sorry, the math is necessary)

A*cos(w1*t) + A*cos(w2*t) = 2A*cos{(w1-w2)*t/2}cos{(w1+w2)*t/2}, where wi are the angular frequencies, or 2*PI*fi, for i = 1, 2.

When this beat interval is short enough to be clearly audible, the notes clash and sound dissonant. Another way to view this is if the note duration is long enough for the beat to become audible, it's probably a problem. Now let me also say that there is no such thing as two physical notes of exactly the same pitch. If one waits long enough, there will be a beat.

But what if the beat interval is very long relative to the duration of the note? Then the envelope of the signal is roughly constant over the note interval, and that signal has a frequency (f1 + f2)/2, or the average frequency. So perfect pitch is less critical for faster passages, as I'm sure most of us know practically. Think of the two unison pairs on a 12-string guitar. If they're out of tune enough for the beats to be noticed over the note interval and sound dissonant, they're too far out. But if they're close, they sound fine. All this considers unison pitches, but similar arguments can be made for harmonics, which is the basis of JI.

Now if the phases of the two signals are not coherent (they never are in practice) and amplitudes vary (as they will in practice), the beats will be even further 'schmeared' and the average frequency will be biased towards the louder instrument, which makes this even more tolerable. A side benefit is that an ensemble of players will be more fault tolerant to pitch imperfections, and there will be additional freedom to creatively vary pitches slightly, since the additional notes just get averaged in. On the other hand, if everyone else is exact and someone comes in a little bit off, it sticks out. This is the mathematics of what Paul observes above, and what Bobbe mentioned earlier. I believe they have hit that nail on the head. I also argue that this produces a richer sound, since what is actually happening is two different tones around the average pitch, sort of the difference between the 12-string guitar and a 6-string guitar. I don't know all the psychoacoustics behind this, but I think the brain can sense this additional richness. There is a lot of research going on these days on the effect on the brain of low-beat-frequencies and their ability to calm or excite the brain.

As I said in the other tuning post by Bob C., blues musicians absolutely work with pitch creatively, that's an integral part of the style. IMO, that's a big part of the beauty of any slide-oriented guitar, like a simple slide guitar or a steel guitar. The ability to creatively mess around with pitch. It's why slide is so popular among blues guitarists, IMO. Listen to Earl Hooker, Robert Nighthawk, and others for complete mastery of this. If I didn't want to mess around with pitch, I wouldn't play a variable-pitch instrument. In fact, I'd have stuck with classical piano, ironically basically ET, which I started on at the age of 7. What drove me to switch to guitar was Mike Bloomfield and the microtonal blues world he opened up to a lot of people my age, and sent me scurrying in the late 60s to find and listen to old blues records and live performances by the masters.

Everything I've said so far has strictly to do with the actual tones produced. Another question is: "How does the ear perceive two very closely-pitched notes?". That's a psychoacoustic problem, as alluded to above. The ear is nonlinear, which means that it does not faithfully reproduce pitches. Typically, pitches are added, and additional filtering takes place. The ear cannot respond instantly to acoustic stimuli. This complicates things immensely. In addition, it guarantees that no two people will hear even the exact same input the same.

Ultimately, I generally prefer older music, roughly recorded in, relative to today's standards, crude studios, as compared to most of what I hear on the radio today. Think Chess studios, Sun studio, RCA Studio B, Bradley's Barn, etc. These folks worked with what they had to produce an artistic result. They had no electronic tuners or digital recording studios with unlimited tracking and editing capability. Some of the instruments, especially steels, were crude by today's standards, but they made it work. I like the almost human-vocal-quality of the sounds. This is no denigration to the fine musicians who make music today. I think technical prowess and artistry among studio musicians is better than ever. As Paul points out, the tuning bar has been raised considerably by precise production values. That said, that's one of my problems with contemporary production values. I'd rather see players have more room to work with pitch, I think the overall result would be more pleasing (to me). I won't get on my soapbox about this, it's just my opinion.

GREAT post.

quote:

---

The ear cannot respond instantly to acoustic stimuli. This complicates things immensely. In addition, it guarantees that no two people will hear even the exact same input the same. -DM-

---

I tried to put it less exactly by saying that of my best playing is done more from the heart, or absent inspiration, from the mind, rather than constant ear/brain/hand loops, and ET for "ME" seems to get it closer when I listen to the results. By the time you hear it, it's too late to play it anyhow...

quote:

---

A*cos(w1*t) + A*cos(w2*t) = 2A*cos{(w1-w2)*t/2}cos{(w1+w2)*t/2-DM

---

Never apologise for "math" .

I think lots of instruments' players could benefit from the posts here. I've referred several people in other parts of "the business". and got mostly that they didn't know there was "that much" to it.

EJL

[This message was edited by Eric West on 01 May 2005 at 02:25 AM.]

I agree the tendancy to go for total perfection in all elements of a production,
makes it harder in general for all players with non fretted instruments.

And also harder for most players in general to pout some "LIFE" in the performance..
You and Brent are two of those lucky rare exceptions.

The old days of do it live and no dubs is so rare these days as to be an odiity.

If I had my druthers, I would do an album of originals using a work up road band, all friends and confortable with each other and the music.

The rock bands most noted for this were Huey Lewis and the News, and Tom Petty's band playing for Stevie nicks.
Killer tracks done live to multi track

I know the better Nashville tracking sessions do use a pretty good sized, live rythm section,
where space alows, and that is to be aplauded.

David M. VERY good post!

I suspect in practice, even the purest ET is bent into some kind of JI with bar presure and such to some extent.

How you procced to tune really depends on what instruments are in your band. If you have a synth type piano or organ sound as a big presence,
you will be closer to ET in practice,

But a more guitar, fiddle based band will likely have a more bluesy tempering of all instruments naturally.

The piano teacher above commenting on the Well Tempered Klavier works,
was partly right and wrong.

The cycle of this group of works WAS a set of excersises in all keys, true,
BUT it was also Bach's way of showing WHY he had switched tuning schema.

This point may have been lost on the teacher, because he only had played these works on a well tempered klavier,
so he never NOTICED the tuning change as being neccessary...

Each piece showed a particular problem in a given key when tuned ET on the keyboard.
Too out to be good sounding in too many cases.
But then being shown to work on a tempered keyboard.
So yes, it is a key cycle, but it is much more than that also.

I would like to harken back to Charlie McDonald's post about his decaeds as a piano tuner.

He pointed out he did use a form of JI in his tuning.

To get an even playing field for all keys, he stretched intervals, "but not to wolfy",
to maker the over ALL sound of the piano work.

The early synths or piano type synthisiser were not tempored,
and it real was hard to play with them a lot of times.

Later digital samples of real tempered pianos were used,
and the those pitches were often adjusted for over all balance by the programers / sonic designers.

[This message was edited by David L. Donald on 01 May 2005 at 02:30 AM.]

Here's something to ponder. I am in no way trying to change your mind on your tuning preference because I agree that it works well for you. However your last jab with the flat statement needs some accurate clarification because it is stated as a fact based on your personal assumption that the ET tuning method is the definitive correct method for tuning with keyboards.

Do you assume that steel players are playing 9 to 15 centz flat to the bands center of pitch? If so, NOT true. Those players you alluded to are only tuning 9 to 15 centz flat to the way you tune your thirds on the pedal steel, NOT to the combination of the other instruments root, thirds, and fifths that create the bands center of pitch. Getting in tune to the bands center of pitch always defines what sounds in tune.

Paul

[This message was edited by Franklin on 01 May 2005 at 08:11 AM.]

------------------
Doug Earnest
The only Zum Keyless U12, Fender Cyber Twin

quote:

---

Besides, I figure if somebody can get away with tuning 9 cents flat to every other instrument, then I’m home free. -BE-

---

I do like the recent putting forth of a "center of pitch".

My most recent year has found me playing with a little lady that plays her keyboard constantly. Not badly mind you, but I invariably look over and 4-10 fingers are hitting ten keys about once per measure. Not a lot of Suspedal, but there nonetheless.

Her husband, bless his heart, will invariably sing harmonies a titch flat, not badly, but enough for me to notice. Add to that her singing where the basic tone center is as close to perfect as I've heard in a while, however when going outside, and giving her the "through the wall test", I find that a lot of the passing notes she sings are quite sharp though the "average" is about as true as I've heard. Her husband is similar. Overall, VERY good vocal intonation.

Add to that, a new guitar player who plays FINE, but do due to youthful exuberance will play sharp from pressing too hard sometimes or using of a capo on a couple songs.

Where do I find my center of pitch?

Since it is a good modern Korg keyboard, and it's a given, and I've checked it's accuracy to my korg tuner, which I tune to, I work with it. I worked with enough keyboards, like ensonique, minigrands, helpentsill, and Rhodes that I don't innately follow even the one I know is in tune (from habits of working with horrible ones). Maybe it's as is said, that sometimes neither it, or me are the "pitch center", like in voice only or voice/guitar. That's OK too.

I've found that many times, absent a credible pitch center, especially in keyboardless bands, which out of a couple hundred, have been the norm, that I am the "pitch center".

Sometimes the vocalists and fiddlers that follow them have been flat beyond belief, and a horribly sharp guitar player hasn't balanced it as per A*cos(w1*t) + A*cos(w2*t) = 2A*cos{(w1-w2)*t/2}cos{(w1+w2)*t/2.

In those cases, it's best for me to play by the seat of my pants, filling my mind with the pitch center that I play regardless of what I "hear".

There was a good instance of this in a good cover band I played with. They kept having problems with singing and some of the playing being "out of tune". THey recorded.

I had to ask to listen to the tapes, because when they listened to them, they realised who was playing "in pitch" and who wasn't.

I seldom if ever "listen to the tapes", because I seem to know what's coming off the bandstand. I am not usually asked to either..

And yes, in MY last years' instance of playing with a well tuned korg keyboard, and a recent model korg tuner, given all the fluctuations, like it or not, the keyboard is the middle end of "in tune" as per A*cos(w1*t) + A*cos(w2*t) = 2A*cos{(w1-w2)*t/2}cos{(w1+w2)*t/2.

Now, all that said, the band I play with is the best I have heard in town WRT being "in tune".

National acts being that way?

I've heard some that were dog$hit™ to say the least. ( can I say that?) Or a bunch of willy nilly noodling, steel guitars that were used as almost "stage props" to play signature licks that were way out of "the pitch center".

Also, some were close to PERFECT, as in the band that I heard Gary Morse in, where the steel IS the pitch center. I'll bet that a lot of the bands he plays with are that way.

Not being born with "perfect pitch", I find that as Mr DM put forth so well, that peoples' ears adjust, and like our eyes, a majority of what we "hear" is what is processed from 40,000 little hairs in our inner ears, through any number of things, critters, earplugs, often imagining the "final auditory picture" and those that drink or do drugs, with that added layer of (mis)processing.

There's certainly nothing wrong with tuning, and being comfortable with ET. ( I first typed "JI" and realised I could substitute "ET", so I did..) I think it might take a little longer to get used to the playing of chords that sound slightly "beatey" in the basement or on recordings, but there are less clashes between chords or combinations like the F lever only 8/4 and nopedal 10/5 where in the Newmann chart there's a discrepancy or 28 cents that in no way can be made up with a "bar slant". (That's almost a third of a fret.)

(That's where the "9 cents" comes in. If it works for a 28 cent discrepancy, then 9 cents is nothing..)

That's a real common lick, as in HR's "Somebody Somewhere" after the words "lonely and sad" that I played last night. I used it last night several times in "What the Cowgirls Do", and "I'd get my heart broke every day if I could".

I try to only state as "fact" things that are so in relation to "me", or in the "math". (A*cos(w1*t) + A*cos(w2*t) = 2A*cos{(w1-w2)*t/2}cos{(w1+w2)*t/2).

Also that in the case of people beginning this long journey, that it is not going to be easy, and simplifying things like tuning, not necessarily making them "easy" is as necessary to them as solid and deliberate bar and pick techniques.

It can be made as hard as anyone makes it. That's for sure.

Relaying my experience of 25-6 years of hard bush league bar, casino, and show playing such as they have been, and still working the jobs I want to work in a dying club atmosphere without having to work for tips, is as close as I care to come to "teaching". Maybe "survival techniques", I dunno.

I don't take money for it, nor do I have much responsibility. I'll even pay the cover charge for those that want to come see the band. They often relay their experiences here. Sometimes they show in "gangs"...

Pitch center of a band?

Often there is none, even in high class deals.

Still reading, studying, playing, and enjoying the civil exchange of ideas.

As a PS, Paul ( I am tempted to call you "Mr Franklin" as my admiration for you and not meeting you personally gnaws at my sense of manners..} I thoroughly enjoyed and learned much from your E9 speed picking courses, and I found it very easy to play along in tune with them, without knowing that we tuned "differently". It was certainly a refreshing input in a "stalled period"..

EJL

[This message was edited by Eric West on 01 May 2005 at 11:24 AM.]

As I said, most of my playing in bands that number in easily over a hundred have been without keyboards.

I know many times when a guitar player that had better intonation than I was more of the "pitch center" and I was able to "follow him". Make that twice. Vocalists rarely, and only fiddle players such as James Mason that used open strings all the time.

I get tired of admitting this, but after starting piano lessons at 6 classical and other guitar, banjo and ocarina ( I just threw that one in) continuing through the time in 77-9 I was lucky enough to get a couple years' lessons with BC, and until sometime in the last five years, when I started hearing bits and pieces of what was going on in the "non eric" world, I had No Idea that anybody tuned otherwise. This after the bulk of my lifetimes' playing was appreciably over with as I had many years runs of 5-7-21+ nights in the previous twenty years or so. Seven of which I lived the true life of the Artiste. Skinny, hard driven, travelled, bad tempered, and broke...

I began by spitting my ice water over my ProIII in laughter, the first time somebody I knew that played regularly and full time too, told me that people seriously tuned this way, and in my forum participation, I have gone from that to consternation, to understanding how this Just Intonation can be made to sound acceptably in tune to my and others' ears. It's actually still a surprise that it isn't represented that way, and tuning straight up to a tuner, strobe, or forks is actually treated as the red headed orphan step-child of steel guitar players that can type.

All the way along trying my best not to force or infer too many of the things that I have come to understand after road, crash, and time testing my ideas of intonation on anybody else. The more knowledge I gain, the more it simplifies things.

It's gotten me to the place I am, with a nice house, a great bike, pets, a job that taxes my being suitably, health, serenity, while playing as many jobs as are available to any steel player in my area, and wealth far above some of my mentors and idols that died penniless, and/or in misery.

One of them is probably out bass fishing today. He durn sure knows that "in tune" is. He told me I had to do that on my own if I could, and turned me loose with a pat on the ass 26 years ago, relieved.

I flew.

I still know "up" from "down" for as much as I need to know it, I actually live my life on this world as if it were flat, and I look up and call the sky blue, though I know it's just a reflection of the green ocean. You know. Common sense..

I tune my Marrs with no appreciable cabinet drop to what my tuner says, and try my best to play it that way. Keyboards or not.

God willing, I will continue, much the better for the exchanges I've had here with You DD, DM, Mr's F, Green, Emmons, Seymour, Anderson, and hundreds of others with kindness, instruction, and challenge.

Hopefully and prayerfully many more to come.

EJL

[This message was edited by Eric West on 01 May 2005 at 05:21 PM.]

------------------
Livin' in the Past and Future with a 12 string Mooney Universal tuning.

Also in line with what Paul said, I have noticed tuning problems on some old (big hit) records. The bass on Haggard's original "Fugitive" comes to mind. (Sounds almost as if he's in a different county!) It's also much easier for me to hear problems in the studio, where certain instrument combinations can be listened to individually, as opposed to hearing the whole thing. I'm pretty sure that when "I'm Not Lisa" was cut, no one walked away from the studio muttering to themselves about intonation, JI, and ET.

At any rate, I think all those steelers I held in such high esteem in the past (Pete, Weldon, Lloyd, Curly, BC, BE, Hal, Dave, Big Jim, and a host of others), deserve special accolades for the job they did. With no charts, no tuners, and some pretty crude guitars, they still managed to sound pretty darn good, to me anyway!

I guess they were good listeners.

My comments that have been more than a few might be thought of as what I've noticed as a still busy bush leaguer that had to find a playable, defendable way to tune and play consistently with a constantly changing variety of players and instruments( though some of the guitar players I played with for 2-20 years with).

I'd like to say it has had something to do with some fancy tuning formula, but it hasn't.

Maybe in keeping things in sync with temperature, and changing dynamics of worked strings, or giving in to sharp guitars or mistuned mini grands for the sake of survival, but it's been mercifully simple for me, though not "easy".

What's been GREAT is that so many really great, and not just "esteemed" players have come forward, like Mr's Emmons, Franklin, Bouten, Seymour, lately Mr Sweeney, and dozens more, and stated their takes on tuning and playing in such.

I don't think it's a small thing that such an under-discussed subject has been so well defined in the relative infancy of our instrument, nor yet had there been such research done by those contributing.

It's nice to think that I was "there" if for no other reason than to piss a couple of them off into finally spitting it out. Maybe even finding ways to put into words something they thought they'd never have to.. Mr. Sweeney's comments reflect this.

I owe a debt of gratitude to all of them from Mr Emmons on which-ever-way. So do thousands of beginning players that can now read what they wrote on the subject and understand the "Tremendous Tunin' Question" a lot better.

Last night I played with yet another well tuned guitar (and bass). I'd known all the players for 20 years, but hadn't played with them as a group. It went fine. Plain ole beer joint band, all the old "standards". Got my $60, and will do 'er again tonite.

God Willing.

EJL

You didn't piss me off. But, I've seen this subject on here before and it got nasty. That's why I stay away from these topics if at all posible. My opinion on tuning is still the same as it's always been except I tune my roots to 442 instead of 440.

quote:

---

a well tuned korg keyboard

---

Sounds like an oxymoron to me....

Eric, what I meant had nothing to do with how long you tuned ET.

My point was if this lady is playing block chords
all along on a synth type keyboard,
it must be the tonal centar.
And likely is minimally tempered if at all.

The keyboard is tuned to it'self and never changes,
so all others MUST tune relative to it.

Some higher sometimes,
some lower sometimes.
Depends on the player, age of their strings, personal taste,
and a host of other factors.

When people tune up, some tend a trifle sharp, but eventually all go flat.

Some tune to precise pitch and then go flat.
String instruments go flat often fast.

But the keyboard won't,
So out of necestity the pitch center is the non varying keyboard.

Some one mentioned playing a track that sounded great...
but LATER a elctronic keyboard was added,
and sudden;y the overall pitch center shifted,
and he had to go back and replay,
a bit sharper or flatter to accomidate the CHANGED pitch center.

The keyboard was enough to shift the whole center.
Now, one playing block chords all night long,
will naturally forcae all others too tune relative to itself.

Regardless if they tune JI, ET or MT

ET would likely be closer to what little tempering the digital key has built in.

But not neccesarilly to the whole band..
depends on the players.

[This message was edited by David L. Donald on 08 May 2005 at 02:57 AM.]

Well Dan, nothing's perfect I guess...

DLD. I could tune JI, MT, FU, or against it if I wanted. Believe me, nobody would know the difference but me.. It'd be interesting to see what this 2004 Korg keyboard uses as their "tempering". It showed the steel guitar range to be "in the sights" of my 2005 korg GT12.( Not a cent that I can tell different from my DT3 from a few years ago.)

Things are always changing instrument wise. Hopefully to more precision.

I'll omit the begged for over-reaching postulation..

Night all. Long week.

In track #1 of my "name that steel" post, 90 % of the solo is in tune.. for a brief period however, it wavers off true into "pitciness".. I can hear it now, I could hear it 12 years ago when the track was cut. No one else associated with production of the album ever mentioned it, but I always knew it was there.. I believe it was pretty obvious!..

As opposed to 2 maybe 3 notes as much of the steel music I hear does.

We may naturally intonate ourselves to the reference, and the bar goes a bit angled subconciously.

I do a lot of C6 BIG chords, and notice the outness more in ET on the top tensions.
So I use a tempered tuning I like that gives me the biggest chords on that neck.

Anyway, to some of these other points. I think the choice of method to do relative, string-to-string, intonation is a player decision, based on what type of music being played and perhaps other things also. For me, if it's slower and leans heavily on the 'classic' triads, where the notes are harmonically-related, skewing to JI makes sense. I even do that on guitar - nothing sounds worse than an 'out' pure triad on a slow, pretty tune. On the other hand, if it's gonna be fast-and-furious, with a lot of non-harmonically-related color tones, skewing to ET may also make sense. But this is completely separate from the overall pitch-center, which must be followed regardless of choice of string-to-string intonation method.

This is all great when everything is set up well, technically, and players can hear themselves and everyone else well. But other problems can occur on a loud stage or a poorly set up studio, some things get overpowering, others get overpowered. That's where I hear the most severe problems with pitch, but of course, that's where audiences are often the least discerning - for example, in a loud club with booze. To get feedback on my playing, I want to hear recordings of this kind of stuff, but sometimes it makes me blush.

For example, I just got a CD from a guy who recorded my rockabilly band informally at a gig almost 10 years ago. It was a loud, raucous, big-party type of gig, and during the listen, I found myself annoyed with the guitar players (including me), why don't they tune the bloody things more often! I remember the gig well, there was so much going on, it was really hard to hear, and the energy level exceeded the musical level sometimes. But this is what everyone wanted, it sounds kinda' cool in a retro sort of way, but I wish, in hindsight, we had paid more attention to tuning.

During gigs now, especially on steel, I am more inclined to pause to tune between songs periodically. But, often somebody needs to remind the audience, if they become impatient, "We tune because we care". At gigs, for me, the truth is that most people would rather have a non-stop onslaught of 'shake your booty' than wait for us to get in tune. This is when I just wing it with the tuner, try to keep it close, and just play. When in Rome ...., or something like that.

I'll tell you, I've learned a lot from this thread. A lot of these ideas were fuzzy in my brain before. Bob, don't let anybody convince you to stop bringing up controversial subjects.

I mentioned toward the end of the night that there are and were plenty of guys from near the top on down that adjust their thirds to "remove beats. We reminisced about when we first started playing guitar 40 years ago, and after using 'fuzz tone overdrive" noticed the "Beating of the Thirds", and both would try to tune to "Silence Them". Both noting that that's the reason or "root/fifth" "power chords", where the beats are .6hz. (Also the futility of doing it without it biting your ass in a few measures or being out with other instruments.) Both of our opinions were the same about instruments that "tune them out"..

It's really nice to play with people that don't "skew their tunings" +/- 15cents away from being in tune with you/others that do use tuners, fifty year old strobe or otherwise...

Oh Brother.

( That was the name of the band.)

Still going..

EJL

[This message was edited by Eric West on 08 May 2005 at 11:58 AM.]

------------------

Whitney Single 12 8FL & 5 KN,keyless, dual changers Extended C6th, Webb Amp, Line6 PodXT, Goodrich Curly Chalker Volume Pedal, Match Bro, BJS Bar..I was keyless....when keyless wasn't cool....

[This message was edited by George Redmon on 27 June 2005 at 09:20 AM.]

I can say that I've read every thread, EVERY "Buddy Emmons" comment, by the way, and I have never taken anything he said out of context. I envy his communication abilities as much as his playing abilities.

I play EVERY weekend, in the bands that I want to play in, and before music went to strict weekends here in Portland, I played more weeks a month besides than not. I always get paid too.

I only took the time to answer and participate in this "Tremendous Tunin' Question" because I felt all these complex and useless "tuning systems" and "midieval beatless theories" would confuse new players un-necessarily.

People may tune as they wish, they can read what they wish, and they tire, I suppose, at their own rates.

I have only taken what time I wish to defend the most simple, concise, and easily explainable way to tune a pedal steel guitar that I know of. It's probably the easiest thing I've ever done, though it, to be sure has taken more of my time than I allow most "non playing" things to take.

No matter how much time goes by, or more complex theories, equations, or tuning charts come to light, I will still tune the way I tune, that is pleasing to MY ear, play as often as I wish, to the best of my ability, and when it's right for me on the bandstand...

I fly.

I would expect others to do so too, if they want to.

EJL

[This message was edited by Eric West on 27 June 2005 at 07:53 PM.]

These "Ear Training" things:

As, or if a person becomes adept at "following what they hear", are they then not unlike the "fiddle player" we all have come to despise for following "the horribly flat vocalist"?

I might opine that "it" is something you develop internally, independent of "what you think you hear" at any given moment.

I was watching a local drummer here at a show at Duffs last thursday before my weekend gig.

Kenny Sawyer.

I was finally able to put what I consider his magical drummers' gift into words: He is able to ignore everything, and hear everything at the same time.

Thereby, he has been in my mind the most steady and tastefully dynamic drummer that I have ever had the pleasure to work with locally a few times over the years. I've heard few that matched him in any venue or locale.

It's no small task, to be sure. Watching and listening to him never ceases to amaze and please me.

Besides being a very gentle and kind friend. He's solid as a rock.

I can't help thinking that playing against instruments and vocalists that are sometimes wandering around tonally without haplessly following them into flattness or sharpdom is quite a job, and is possibly the antithesis of "Ear Training".

It comes from inside mainly, and doesn't happen overnight in my humble opinon and hard fought experience.

Simplicity isn't Ease by any means.

Night.

EJL

The above link covers pretty much all the history, beginning with cogent responses by Chas Smith, David Doggett, and Jeff Smith, on page 3, who knows quite a lot about it.

But my statements here will eventually get back to the topic, which is tuning the pedal steel, and the problems I have been able to glean from posts. Bear with me.

Trying to figure out what is generally meant by steelers re sharp or flat thirds, I have these facts about the equal temperament. All thirds are sharp from just, fourths are similarly 'wide', and 5ths are 'narrow'.

Take the third; as b0b says, the ratio is 5/4. This means that the 5th harmonic of F coincides with the 4th harmonic of A. (A tuner will then flat the F by about 7 beats per second.)
Why? If I were to tune the intervals F-A, A-C#, and C#-F 'beatless', or justly tuned, I would not end up with an octave; the hi F would be flat from the lo F.

And we know how the circle of 5ths, all tuned beatless, doesn't come out with the same starting pitch. To do that, you must narrow the fifths and widen the fourths (from beatless).

Tuning wars are not solely the purvue of steel players; among piano tuners, there are 'A' tuners and 'C' tuners. A tuners start with an A and tune the F to an ideal third beat rate; C tuners tune the F for an ideal 5th beat rate. They do not agree.
I used two forks (now two notes from a Kord tuner), C, for me, and A, for guitar and violin players, since I tuned lots of studios, symphonies, and bands.

Being a piano player, I like a strong 5th, a slower beating than a true ET. Right away there is a compromise involved. That is, my progression of thirds is not perfect, but my fifths work very well in ensembles. As I tune up the scale, I check my 13ths (an octave + a fifth) and tune them beatless, which maintains strong fifths, and the stretch is implied.

Electric pianos: there are 12 pots, so the entire piano is governed by that.
An electronic, 'sampled' piano, is sampled (from a concert class grand) at each octave; thus you get the 'stretch.'
I think you can draw your own conclusions.

The pedal steel's temperament is over its 10- or 12-string compass. Thus, to accommodate the natural sounding stretch, how you play is involved. You set your thirds to accommodate that, you place your bar, say an octave up, to accommodate that, with your ear.

And so, it's different, piano to steel, in that your technique accommodates your aural preferences, as a string player accommodates to accompany a singer or a piano, in the case of a concerto.

But no matter how you tune, a third will be wide of beatless, JI or ET.

It's more personal with a steel; thus I conclude you're all doing it right. Each steel is different, each ear is different.

This is brief, but I hope it helps.

quote:

---

Ever been out of tune on a recording???

---

Yes.

------------------

Drew Howard - website - Fessenden D-10 8/8, Fessenden SD-12 5/5 (Ext E9), Magnatone S-8, N400's, BOSS RV-3

------------------
kd...and the beat goes on...