Subtle differences is basically all there is between ALL brands of PSG's.

Comparing guitars to pedal steels is not an accurate comparison. Comparing the differences between the copies of Strats and tele's to guitars like the Anderson, Paul Reed Smith, Peavey, Tradition, Pensa Sur etc. would be an equal comparison.

Because all steels have been designed to emulate a specific sound because of the Country markets desire. There have only been a few to break away from the accepted tonal mold. The widest tonal seperation from the accepted norm is found in the old MSA. Sustain was the main difference. Curly's MSA sustained less and had more of a percussive punch because of that factor.

On the other hand, Listen to Chalkers work behind Carl Smith and Listen to his "Big Hits On Big Steel" record. His tone remains consistant between the Fender and Sho-Bud guitars. There is only subtle differences between guitars.

Frank,
Do you believe you can tell Mike Johnson's Red PP Emmons on recordings?

Paul

[This message was edited by Franklin on 09 December 2006 at 07:21 AM.]

------------------
Rick
Kline Cadillac U-12, Nashville 112 and 1000, Hilton Volume Pedal

[This message was edited by Rick Nicklas on 09 December 2006 at 08:02 AM.]

I agree with you. that is a way of manipulating the harmonic content. But the guitar still have a certain way of enhancing certain frequencies and softening some based on the construction. I really don't think we actually disagree when I read your posts more closely, but we are talking somewhat about two different things - the natural tone of the guitar, and ways of *changing* it. But even if you DO change it to a degree, it still has a bedrock, basic sound - and that's where the sound production starts, not with the hands. The guitar is the raw material. So looking at your analysis, I agree with you pretty much all the way; it's just different issues - one is the inherent tone of the instrument, the other is the manipulation of that tone.

As I said earlier, the list of guitars I mentioned mostly have unique signature tones - just as guitar players talk about "tele tone" and such. And it IS fun and challenging to TRY to make one guitar sound like something else - and certainly there are cases where you CAN fool somebody. But the basic point is that regardless of all that, each guitar has a tonal "base" - its inherent tone. It all starts there.

Donny, the truly basic inherent tone is the one produced without even being plugged in - that's where the harmonic content comes from. Pickups, controls and such are useful in, again, manipulating that basic tone. In some cases the controls mildly affect the tone and the guitar is normally recognizable - the two-pickup Fender example is a good one, as regardless of the control settings or which pickup (or both) is used, it STILL sounds like a Fender...and each one sound just slightly different; but there's a basic similarity due to the construction and hardware.

FWIW "Bass Player, "The Quest for Tone - From Alembic to Zon" has a brief, to the point note regarding Steinberger's opinions as far as instrument construction and how it creates the basic instrument tonality.

Paul noted: "Comparing guitars to pedal steels is not an accurate comparison. " I agree that the differences in modern pedal steel tones are very subtle, but the guitar/steel comparisons are quite valid; the only difference in the "markets" being how subtle (or NOT sbtle) the tonal differences are...there can be subtle differences or huge differences between Strats produced on the same day; they'll still sound like Strats though.

But Paul's point is well-taken that the bulk of the market for pedal steel wants ONE sound, so most makers get within a limited tonal range. This is probably great from a sales and coutry-consistency standpoint, but unfortunate from a "musical" one for a lot of players. There ARE players who want a different sound, and not everyone plays country. The "one tone" limitations really show in other styles of music, where the lack of onboard electronics and the "one tone" design requires the use of a myriad of outboard gear if one wants to NOT sound like a country pedal steel in a rock, metal, punk, reggae or what-have-you context.

I'm not disagreeing with Paul at all - I just think that there *could* be more done on the construction end to support other styles, but I fully understand that it's economically not feasible to produce "one-off" instruments, sell them at a reasonable price and even dream of making a profit!

;-)

[This message was edited by Jim Sliff on 09 December 2006 at 09:29 AM.]

As for your treble question. I have to say not true. I believe there is as much Tone found in the bass and middle side of instruments as there is in the treble side which makes each one sound inherently different from the next.

Here's the real deal. A guy with poor control, or a relative beginner of the instrument will notice wider differences between the tone of brands, Because they lack the skills and knowledge to play themselves into the instrument. Once a player masters the use of the hands-I'm not talking about just getting a clean sound, 'cause there's alot more to the art of playing than that. Now couple a masterful set of hands with the processing options that are available it becomes almost impossible to consistantly pick out one brand from another. Yet, we can be completely consistant in recognizing certain players tones each time they play sight unseen. This is pretty easy because we can hear a musicans style alot easier than the inherent tone of any guitar.

quote:

---

Frank,
Do you believe you can tell Mike Johnson's Red PP Emmons on recordings?

---

Paul we do appreciate your participation in this thread and you have been one of those who has made the most sense.

As to your question, I was referring to Mike's playing on the TV show, "You can be a Star." I am aware he owns a Franklin and probably has used it exclusively in the studio for several years, perhaps all of the years after he left Bill Anderson. He still plays the push-pull at some shows and sometimes on the Opry.

As for the Paisley recordings, I think he did a great job of capturing your (Paul's) signature sound. I was uncertain who did that first Paisley record when it was getting air play. A tribute to you and him--imitation is the greatest form a flattery.

So...I think it is possible to take an Emmons push-pull and through effects and amplification and playing style get pretty close to your signature sound.

I would assume that any recordings Mike did with Bill Anderson would have been with one of his push-pulls and probably would not have emulated your signature sound as much and that is when you could hear a difference.

Isn't the real point of this thread is to say that if one has "the hands" then they can make a Legend sound like a LeGrande?

Paul, thank you for changing the way we play...I know I often attempt to use that approach in my own playing.

It sounded different than my guitar, but not so much that anyone would have noticed if I didn't answer your question.

I no longer own any of the brands I mentioned including my first Fender 400.

I spent many years as a guitar player suffering under the myth that, somehow, there was some sonic nirvana that was intrinsic in the "mojo" of particular guitars, and almost always picked guitars based on some sense of this "fixed, inherent tone", and worried much less about other practical issues like playability. In the guitar world, there is a terminology for this - a "tone guy" vs. a "neck guy". This is part of the mystique - and often hype - about certain types of instruments that helps sell them. This has served the vintage guitar market well, to the point that many guitar players seem adamantly convinced they "need" a specific - and commensurately expensive - vintage guitar to get that elusive "tone", and that nothing else will cut it. This idea did not serve me well in terms of musical production and development, and I don't intend to repeat it on pedal steel 20 years later. I spend a lot more time working on my hands than messing around with my equipment, and I think I took good advice on that from people on this forum.

I don't say that the idea of inherent tone is completely false - just that I found that as I got to be a better guitar player, relatively small differences in the "nominal" instrument tonality were easily overcome by learning to control this more with my hands. I didn't have to have Mike Bloomfield's '59 Les Paul Standard to get that tonal signature. A modern Les Paul Standard does quite fine, thank you. Given the right type and quality of instrument, any deficiencies are in the player, not the instrument - IMO. In fact, as I learned and listened more critically, I found that most of the really good players got their signature tone on a fairly wide array of equipment.

I don't argue that you can get Emmons P/P "tone" from an Gibson Electraharp, classic Tele "tone" from a spruced-top archtop or flattop, or as Bobbe suggested in his newsletter, the "tone" of a Bösendorfer 9' concert grand from a Roland keyboard. That said, however, I think, on a good instrument of the right type, there is usually a large envelope of possible tonalities from an instrument, leaving a lot of room for a player to get his or her "tone".

[I wrote the above early this morning and held it - my last two paragraphs go to the point in Paul's first post on this page. I agree that it's necessary to consider instruments of the same basic type.]

Tony,
Pete Drake who produced the record told me Chalker played his Fender on "BHOBS" and fought its tuning all the way. He played a Sho-Bud on Carl's recordings.

"...as I got to be a better guitar player, relatively small differences in the "nominal" instrument tonality were easily overcome by learning to control this more with my hands." - of course. small differences, for a better player, are easier to tweak. But as you note, larger differences are not.

" I found that most of the really good players got their signature tone on a fairly wide array of equipment." - here's where I disagree a bit, and go back to Paul's point about confusing "style" with "tone".

" I think, on a good instrument of the right type, there is usually a large envelope of possible tonalities from an instrument, leaving a lot of room for a player to get his or her "tone"." - no argument, but it will be a sound that is based on the *instrument's* tone. And as already discussed, modern steels have become lowest-common-denominator instruments tonally, with one "target" tone...which to me is very unfortunate to anyone not in the "target" group.

One note of Paul's I respectfully disagree with, but perhaps it's because of too many years of hearing and working on guitar tonal differences - and endless discussions about it: I think it's the newer players that can't recognize tonal differences, just as the audience usually can't - to them a "pedal steel" is just that, and it sounds like a "pedal steel". There IS no tonal recognition (and overall it's only "us" that hears the difference anyway - the non-playing audience only recognizes bad or really out-of-tune playing, really - and often they even don't notice "hot licks" stuff either).

As you gain more experience and exposure to instruments, especially stringed instruments, whether steel, 6-string, acoustic or electric, you begin to notice the tonal subtleties. And it takes, IMO, decades of experience to learn how to really manipulate them effectively. Just as with electric guitars where a beginner can't hear the difference between a '54 Strat, a Trussart Steel DeVille and a $99 Ibanez, a novice musician starting on steel won't hear the difference between a Millenium and a Maverick....he might if you point it out, but not on his/her own.

According to Dad, Brad's sessions are on the Franklin as is most everything Mike records. And I completely agree your point. Someone like Mike can take an Emmon's and capture the Franklin sound and Visa Versa because most of what the listener hears is a masterful musician capturing their personal tone within any instruments inherent sound. I've heard Mike do exactly that even though There is a definite difference between the sound of those two brands.

To me, Dean Parks stated it perfectly. Players find the tones they desire no matter what. If a certain brand is in your heart you'll play differently on that guitar. That's what I call "the guitars inspirational characteristics". The inspirational factor is also the most important reason to play guitars you love.

Jim,
I did not imply, nor do I agree, with what you took from my post. I know that Pedal steel guitars being designed more or less towards the same type of tonal characteristics does NOT limit the types of tones and music that musicians of all genres can get out of any of todays guitars.

A telecaster is used in every field of recording, like Blues, Country, Jazz, Pop, Country Rock, Alternative, whatever. Its the players expertise that's limiting, not the guitars inherent tone.

Paul

[This message was edited by Franklin on 09 December 2006 at 12:36 PM.]

quote:

---

Here's the real deal. A guy with poor control, or a relative beginner of the instrument will notice wider differences between the tone of brands, Because they lack the skills and knowledge to play themselves into the instrument.

---

Yeah, that speaks volumes. Tony asked about all of Paul's Franklin guitars sounding alike, and again Paul casts down the pearl...

quote:

---

Because all steels have been designed to emulate a specific sound because of the Country markets desire. There have only been a few to break away from the accepted tonal mold.

---

Dave Mudgett came along and kinda tied the ribbons on the whole philosophy I've followed and preached here (usually to no avail)...

quote:

---

I spent many years as a guitar player suffering under the myth that, somehow, there was some sonic nirvana that was intrinsic in the "mojo" of particular guitars, and almost always picked guitars based on some sense of this "fixed, inherent tone", and worried much less about other practical issues like playability. In the guitar world, there is a terminology for this - a "tone guy" vs. a "neck guy". This is part of the mystique - and often hype - about certain types of instruments that helps sell them. This has served the vintage guitar market well, to the point that many guitar players seem adamantly convinced they "need" a specific - and commensurately expensive - vintage guitar to get that elusive "tone", and that nothing else will cut it. This idea did not serve me well in terms of musical production and development, and I don't intend to repeat it on pedal steel 20 years later. I spend a lot more time working on my hands than messing around with my equipment...

---

I'm thankful that some pros came in here to give us their thoughts as well. (I'll be printing and saving those!) Also, I'm thankful that Reece hung in here through all this diatribe and dissention. Reece, you got a lotta guts!

Also, as an aside, I wonder if you ever see the "big dogs" of rock guitar (like Beck and Clapton) arguing subtle points like this on straight guitar forums?

Somehow, I doubt it.

That's true Paul. But there are also Les Pauls, Jacksons, PRS, Gretsch, etc...and they are not all aiming at the same single tonal target. That's what I was comparing, and that's where steels are, by contrast, more limited. You simply can't cover as wide a tonal range with 6 different modern steels as you can with 6 different modern guitars, if the steels are all being made to sound the same (as you pointed out). You stressed that the "target" for the makers was country since that's where the bulk of the steel music is played, and that's a great observation. I was just noting one of the problems with it (the situation, not the onservation) for players *outside* country - instead of the snap of a Tele, the grind of a Les Paul, the chunk of a 6120 or the chime of a 360-12 they have one sound available and have to try to make it fit - whether by hands, effects, etc...and it simply does not always work.

It's not a defect, or an error on the part of the builders, since the economics don't warrant a widespread solution - but it just *is*. I was making an observation, not a criticism. When you are well outside the country world, you don't always look at what worked in the past as what's needed now - and talking to many potential players in the metal and rock world (and there are many, many of them interested in the instrument, which is a good thing) in stores, Hollywood clubs and at MI, two of the things that keep them away from pedal steel are tonal limitations and lack of non-country resources.

I'll repeat that it's not an "error" by anyone, just a situation that is difficult, as until there's a market for "non-country" steels no one will sink the money into making them or producing more wide-ranging educational materials on a commercial scale....but without those there's a potential market that stays away. Sort of a "Catch-22". I don't know how to solve it either. If I did my bank account would be much fatter....

quote:

---

Here's the real deal. A guy with poor control, or a relative beginner of the instrument will notice wider differences between the tone of brands, Because they lack the skills and knowledge to play themselves into the instrument.

---

"Not trying to be disagreeable, but just a thought on Paul's notion: Wouldn't a relative beginner conversely have little or no clue about the tone differences between brands?"

Agreed. I mentioned that a few posts ago.

[This message was edited by b0b on 16 December 2006 at 09:46 AM.]

quote:

---

“Is it possible to consistently identify a sound/tone “signature” which is unique and exclusive to any specific name brand of pedal steel guitar manufactured in the past 40 years”?

---

My answer is: It depends entirely on the situation in which you attempting to identify the name brand.

For instance I am just beginning to explore ALL of the tonal changes my hands can provide while chiming with the side of my hand or palm. There are many different tonal variations possible and I spent several hours last week trying to master the tones I dig. I will continue spending alot more time with various chiming techniques this year. It takes alot of practice time to master this most, complex instrument.

This is probably a better way to sum up my comment. I meant a player who doesn'tt take the time to master PSG techniques, by increments, is more apt to be convinced that the tones they hear comes from a guitar, pickup, or amplifier change. I agree ALL of those elements are important and I can certainly hear the differences when I play them. I completely agree with TC's latest post. I urge all students to learn by playing into the instrument, Don't let it play you.

Jim,

[personal aside about Jim deleted]

I have played dobro for years on records. Beside the real deal like Douglas and Ickes, I'm just a Nobro guy. It seems like I have approached that instrument the way you're approaching the pedal steel. I haven't learned bluegrass styles because its not my thing. I basically have no connection with the roots of this instruments origin. I can make money with it, but in all honesty, I can not really call myself a serious student of the instrument. I don't recommend my dobro mindset to anyone.

Paul

[This message was edited by Franklin on 10 December 2006 at 02:21 PM.]

I did have a short stint in the part time, "pedal-mash a few songs and make things sound country" world of steel playing (probably much like you describe your dobro work) about 10 years ago, but had a bad instrument and lost interest...plus I was simply too busy with guitar and bass gigs to mess with it enough to become very confident with it, so I bailed out eventually.

As far as "debating" - I'm not really "debating" anything. If you note, generally we seem to be in sync on most points. There are a few things we see differently - nothing wrong with that. My only strong feeling is the basic premise that all instruments have their own unique tone, even is differences are very subtle, and the hands are tools to put that tone into action...or as you said (and I like the terminology) "deliver" the tone.

As far as "serious student of the instrument", I do consider myself one. I do not know if you were implying that study of the history of the country players is some kind of "requirement" to be "serious", but I would disagree if that is your point. I'm studying mostly the players I'm influenced by - Sneaky, Al Perkins, Robert Randolph, Chuck Campbell, your Dire Straits work, and then bits and pieces of others (including some country) because of particular tunes in the 200-300 or so the bands I'm involved with play. Then I'm stealing horn, guitar, keyboard, fiddle or whatever riffs I can. there are no tabs, tapes or videos for what I do so I HAVE to be seriously dedicated to it.

I'm not studying the history of country steel because it does not interest me. I respect the players and the music, and I don't mind listening to it, but it's not my musical direction...and I've actually played far more original music (sort of a non-pigeonholed mix of alternative/jamband/country-rock/blues/progressive) in the last 5-10 years than any other type. I'm not in it for the money anymore, I'm in it to let my creative juices flow..and it's nice not having to worry about pleasing the same club owner every week or listening to endless "Freebird" requests. ;-)

Anything else you'd like to know I'd be glad to share with you via email. Shoot me a note and I'll answer any questions you have. This really should have been by email as well IMO, but I can't generate that contact. It's up to you.

Regards,

I understand a little better now what you were saying.

*(Edited for aimless rambling........ )

[This message was edited by Chris LeDrew on 10 December 2006 at 09:14 PM.]

1. Those that invest time by emersing themselves in the instrument, equipment, technique, practice, and history.

2. Those that think they can buy tone.

Terry

[This message was edited by Terry Edwards on 11 December 2006 at 09:55 AM.]

quote:

---

...their opinions are treated with respect just like everyone else's. There's not a "pecking order" like there is around here.

---

Jim, there's always a lot of respect here, though there's often strong disagreement...even among some pros, and what you refer to as our "pecking order" even sounds slightly denigrating. However, for most of us here, that "pecking order" is really just a recognization on our part that those who've spent their entire lives doing nothing but playing pedal steel just might know a little more about it than someone who's far less experienced.

Paul Franklin - Franklin
Sonny Garrish - Emmons PP (Mostly)
Dan Dugmore - Sho-Bud

It was my hope an extensive discussion would not only be helpful to many, it would provide the opportunity of revealing a consensus which could help in resolving what some believe to be a long standing myth concerning steel guitar.

After an informative and lengthy discussion on this thread and an earlier one, I believe for most, the question could now become a “yes or no question”!

Because the definition of inherent is “of the essence of a thing”……IF a unique sound/tone truly exists, by definition it will be ever present (consistent) no matter who is playing the unique guitar or what their proficiency level may be.

Gear can inspire, but it can't play. I've got some of the best gear money can buy, but it has not made me a better player. I still sound like me; which isn't good, or bad. Who else should I sound like?

We sat around yesterday at our Jugtown Steel Club jam and there were all levels of players and gear. I probably had one of the best rigs at the jam, but I was far from getting the best tone.

It's in the hands!

Jim S....Leo Fender and Paul Bigsby would most certainly have been "qualified" to discuss anything relative to steel guitar.

They contributed greatly to our instrument, and both of them earned and deserve the respect of steel players the world over, partly because of their open mind and willingness to listen to others.

I also know it's easier to hear the differences in lap steels and older consoles, like various types of Fenders vs Bigsbys vs Supros vs Gibsons, etc. etc. etc. Modern PSG's do tend to sound alike, which I think is a shame.

Colby

[This message was edited by Colby Tipton on 11 December 2006 at 07:37 PM.]

FWIW I knew Leo as well. Worked around the corner from the G&L shop in Fullerton for years, got to try a few prototypes, but still stuck with my Teles....hung around the MusicMan amp QC department before that.