Bill H.

[This message was edited by Bill Hankey on 15 September 2003 at 08:08 AM.]

Can the steel be played so it sounds like it's in perfect tune? Yes.

Your statement is very true Donny. However it will not eradicate the offerings made by those who are caught up with the same irreversible tuning problems of every last steel guitarist on the planet. Pitch checks by the human ear can be unreliable, to say the least. Where do we go from here, to find the solution? Electronic detection? No, because there are simply too many variables connected with the mastery of perfect pitch.

The math & science may describe methods and concepts, it does nothing for the sound.

Tune according to the musical situation.

I mean there is no shortage of complaints made, by those whose expertise goes far beyond the mediocre steel guitarist. Why do they stress the disadvantages encountered in attempting to be exactly in tune? Simply because the nature of spring steel will not allow them to do so. The guitar string's tendency to be "fickle" provides the staging area for ensuing problems, which are considerable in number.

Also, to say that math and science does nothing for the sound is to suggest (in my mind) that math does nothing for anything; since in every facet of this world, human's dominate it. And if human frailties and perception (which governs everything we know and do, particulary in respect to sound perception) cannot rely on math and science, then we have made a horrible mistake in teaching millions upon millions math and science.

In addition, a guitar CAN be tuned "perfect" IF, at least two people agree what "perfect" means in a given scenario. Here is an example: If two or more people agree that a guitar is in perfect tune, IF it is tuned straight ET, then ANY guitar which is tuned to straight ET.....IS in "perfect" tune to those people.

If a "problem" has no solution, is it in fact a "problem?" Or is it merely a phenomenon, a situation that simply exists in nature?

IOW, does the use of the term "problem" imply that there must be a "solution?"

------------------
Herb's Steel Guitar Pages
Texas Steel Guitar Association

As in the game of chess, one has to think ahead. Or, take for example a game of pool, where your challenger will make his/her best shot, knowing well a miss could occur. That is why a serious player of any game of wit, would not intentionally become a sitting duck, whereby his/her plans to prove a point could be easily dismantled or ridiculed. I had mentioned to a class act steel guitarist years ago, that nothing has been recorded to date by stringed instruments, that was done so in perfect pitch. It is one of the best kept secrets, that comes to mind. It is not unlike human nature to turn a deaf ear on some of life's most perplexing problems.
We're all caught in this web, or net of insufficient resolve, of constantly, or at a close intervals
retuning to approximately; perfect pitch. My strongest point is made by declaring that a simple test performed on any steel guitar, would indeed exemplify, and give credence to my statements.

When you can tune your 5th E9 string to B, relative to A440, then rub your finger lightly across the length of the string and the tuning changes, it is clear that getting absolute stability in tuning on a pedal steel is not possible.

That said, Donny has the idea. I'm gonna put my money on making it SOUND LIKE IT'S IN TUNE. As long as it pleases my ear -- regardless of whether I tune by ear, or use a tuner, or Tarot cards for that matter, I'm satisfied with it.

I also agree with Herb. It is much more of a phenomenon than a problem. It only becomes a real issue if you can't manage it or deal with it.

------------------
Larry Bell - email: larry@larrybell.org - gigs - Home Page
2003 Fessenden S/D-12 8x8, 1969 Emmons S-12 6x6, 1971 Dobro, Standel and Peavey Amps

[This message was edited by Larry Bell on 15 September 2003 at 11:34 AM.]

I supose that as long as we are willing to define something other than perfect as perfect then within the minds of the imperfect ones doing the defining it will be so..."reality is as you perceive it"; Is that not perfectly clear? "Be ye perfect" etc..

And what pray tell does "math & science" do other than describe? These descriptions lead to communication and discussion, which in turn lead to thinking about, thence to proposing experiments, which leads to advanced structures/materials/techniques/tunings that previous generations previously taught are loath to accept, perhaps because of their imperfections and "frailties". The Structures/materials/techniques/tunings, coupled with the environment in which they are employed give rise to the sound, ..not the math & science. The interpretation of the sound may or may not be the same for those stimulated by it even assuming that they might actually be hearing the same thing (hearing vs age, loudness, etc.).

Math & science folk don't agree with each other, but they do use these things as tools. Math & science do not stand still, ..what is considered as real and absolute in those fields today will be changed tomorrow, as has happened ever since when. What suggestions emerge in your mind
are yours to deal with, ..they probably are imperfect in any case (a common human situation).

So lets use math & science (if we don't it will exist in vain) to improve our understanding of the PSG. This cannot be done efficiently untill those involved learn a bit of the language and agree upon what is meant by the various terms. Not all pickers should even give a .... but perhaps some should, ..at least the music part.

We have arrived at the point where we have imperfect people discussing imperfect concepts using randomly defined terms quantified by arbitrarily truncated values, pleading to the authority of imperfectly communicated history (who tuned how and why), and maybe even coming to perfectly reasonable conclusions (temporary conclusions?), .."these too shall pass".

Should we tune it, play it, or discuss it? Yes! Worship it? No! Enjoy the verbal wrestling match? You betcha!

May Ahura-Mazda guide your bar.

[This message was edited by ed packard on 15 September 2003 at 07:19 PM.]

The history of keyboards makes this clear. Keyboard instruments were originally tuned JI to a single key. They were perfect for that key in a way that ET can never be. They were perfect to our ears because they matched the perfect whole number fractions that divided up the scale for that key. A few other keys with some of the same chords worked okay, but some of the 12 possible keys sounded really bad. This was because the small whole numbered fractions do not place the notes of the scale evenly spaced between the octaves. When you shift to play the scale starting on something other than the root note the instrument is tuned to, the intervals don't automatically work out right for the new key.

To solve this problem they invented the equal tempered tuning. This tuning ignored the small whole number fractions of the fundamental, and simply divided the scale evenly into 12 chromatic intervals. This is imperfect, and so no longer plays any key in perfect tune. But it is a compromise that allows all keys to be played in tolerably and equally imperfect tune. This was Bach's well-tempered clavier.

The same can be done on a pedal steel guitar. You can take a chromatic tuner and tune every string, pedal and knee perfectly to imperfect ET. There is no mystery to this. If your guitar wont do this, there is something wrong mechanically and it needs to be fixed - or sell it and buy one designed better. Any pedal steel should be capable of having every single string and stop tuned perfectly to an ET tuner. Then it can be played tolerably imperfectly in every key, just like a piano.

But it wont sound perfect to our ears, which are the definers of perfection, because it doesn't play the perfect whole number fraction divisions of the fundamental in any key. The pedal steel has a better compromise than a piano. Because the bar acts as an infinite capo, if we tune to perfect JI at any fret, then the bar takes that to any other fret and maintains JI (except for some minor perturbations caused by bar pressure acting diffently at different parts of the neck). So as long as you maintain the same chord inversion you tuned to with perfect JI, you can keep perfect JI in all keys, like voices, orchestral strings and horns, and unlike keyboards and fretted instruments.

But we don't play the same inversion always. We hit the pedals or knees, or play another chord using the auxillary strings, and change the inversion, so that now the string that was playing the 3rd of the chord is playing the tonic or 5th. This creates the same problem the JI tuned keyboard had. The intervals between the strings are now different than the strings were tuned to. For a small number of changes, we can fix this by tuning the pedal and knee stops. But as we add more strings, pedals and knees that are used for different intervals in different chords, we eventually run out of stops to change, without messing up another chord we already have tuned. Compensators can stretch things a good bit further. With enough compensators, it might be possible to tune the whole instrument JI for a whole bunch of chords, but probably never for all chords. But we can probably fix this by splitting the difference here and there and have something much closer to the perfection of JI for all chords in all keys than ET provides.

But this is all just speaking of the instrument playing in tune with itself. If you then want to play with keyboards and fretted instruments that are tuned completely ET, there is a potential problem. The bar and your ears will help strike some acceptable compromise with these instruments, the same way vocalists, fretless strings and horn players do. Surprisingly that may work better than actually trying to tune the whole pedal steel ET.

Jim Cohen said in a recent post that in recording with an ET piano, they were surprised to discover that his pedal steel sounded better tuned JI than straight ET. This may be because of the subjective psychological component of what we are used to and expect. We expect a piano to have that ET sound. But the pedal steel plays harmony with itself like twin fiddles, or like vocalists singing close harmony. We are accustomed to hearing that type of harmony done JI. So even if the piano is playing ET, our ears want to hear the pedal steel harmonizing with itself with JI.

------------------
Bobby Lee - email: quasar@b0b.com - gigs - CDs, Open Hearts
Sierra Session 12 (E9), Williams 400X (Emaj9, D6), Sierra Olympic 12 (C6add9),
Sierra Laptop 8 (D13), Fender Stringmaster (E13, A6),
Roland Handsonic, Line 6 Variax

[This message was edited by Bobby Lee on 15 September 2003 at 04:57 PM.]

None the less, Tommy White sure sounds great on the Opry, at least when he is in the audio mix. How do you explain that????

What in the pluperfect halleluja did you say?

luv ya friend,

Next let us see if anyone cares about the Pythagorean, mean tone, and Walter step tuning (tempering) methods and how they accomplish them. If they don't, then they may be missing out on what could be their "Ideal" (notice that I did not say perfect) tempered tuning.

b0b; lots of terms are used on the forum without being defined, ..that is one of the problems encountered herein.

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

Very respectfully David,

Believe it or not I believe that statement is 100% correct IMO! I believe that with all my heart.

However, the following statement is also just as correct.

"IF two or more people deem that ET is a perfect way to tune a musical instrument, THEN any instrument tuned to ET is a perfectly tuned instrument to those people."

I do not tune ET. I never have, and I never will because I cannot stand beats; except in certain chords like 7ths, 9ths, augmenteds and diminised chords. I tune as close to JI as I can; excluding the above.

But, in my heart and soul, I believe that JI is very imperfect; AND ET is as perfect as is possible to get; in the realm of what science and mathematics would call perfect. I believe this because it is the only tuning method that works in EVERY single key including every note without exception; and it works in total parallel with mathematics and fret alignment etc, etc.

I believe that JI is imperfect for many reasons, but the major reason I believe it is imperfect is the following actual experiences I have encountered.

If you check players guitars who say they tune JI, in MOST cases you will find their JI tuning will be all over the place. In other words some will have their 3rds at -15 cents. Some will have them at -10 cents. Some will be at -5 cents, and anywhere in between.

BUT when you check a player's guitar who tunes straight 440, in most cases, every string will be dead on straight up 440. Unless of course it has drifted from external factors.

That in my book is absolute. Since anyone tuning that way is using an absolute standard; where there is NO deviation from norm. And every note at ever fret (if the frets were installed correctly) is dead on.

That says to this dude, that ET is as perfect as anything can get in this world. Regardless of whether the human ear (THE most imperfect of all our senses) likes it or not.

May Jesus change one of our "paradises" in heaven; so that JI is a perfect way to tune; since there is NOTHING sweeter on a pedal steel guitar.

Again, with much sincere respect David,

quote:

---

Pitch checks by the human ear can be unreliable...

---

Well...that depends on whose ear you're talking about (no disrespect intended). In the final analysis, it's the human ear we are trying to please, so the human ear (provided it's capable and properly trained) is the benchmark. Regardless of what any device would say about how close the tuning is, if it doesn't sound good...it's out. Period!

While the guitar and piano may share the same idiosyncrasies, they do not share the capability of allowing the player to alter the pitch as necessary (up or down) while playing. The piano is either there, or it ain't, and most would admit that it can never be tuned "prefectly". It's tuning is a compromise to make it "acceptable" in all keys and positions. There is no way of altering the piano's tempering as it is being played, so in essence, you MUST learn to live with the compromise of tempered tunings, and tempered chords. On the straight guitar, a player can push notes up a tad, if he has to, but he can't lower fretted notes while playing, as we do on steel. This is what makes the steel a unique instrument.

I would imagine that most all players would be quite happy with a "beatless" instrument if it were possible to have it totally beatless, in all chords and positions. This is the "ideal", and in most all cases, it's what we strive for. Some players may say that they prefer a certain chord (a diminished, for example) to have a slight disonance for "expression", or emphasis of a tense mood. Of course, the issue here isn't how to add a disonance when we prefer it. That's relatively easy! The issue here is how to (on all but desired instances) eliminate the disonances that tempered tunings bring about, or at least be able to precisely control the amount of that disonance.

Use a tempered tuning, or JI if you please, whichever you prefer. Either will allow the respective player to reach his goal, which is to make everything sound good. But always remember..."perfection" is synonymous with beatless, except when the tense or unresolved sound is something we desire. (I know of no musician that desires it in all situations.)

In the music of our western culture, which is enjoyed by our ears that have been acclaimated to same, chords that are "out" or have a disonance (by virtue of being tempered), may occasionally be used (read: "tolerated"), but they are not generally preferred.

Therefore, since there are top-level players that can play in perfect tune (regardless of which method they use to tune the instrument), I submit that the major deficiency is in the player, and not in our instrument, or the method that is used to tune it.

At least, that's how I see it.

How do you know which tempering gives the "sweetest" if you have not tried them all? The discussions seem to treat anything except JI and ET as non existent, just as scales other than 12 tone are ignored.

Perhaps tempering should fit the scale tones to be employed.

Re 12 tone scales, how about the Walter step approach, ..this is a mathematician derived method.

It is reasonable that the tempering methods should be all over the map, ..the players that care about such things that much (to modify some other heros method) may just be using inversions that are helped by such shifts, ..others may not use these positions and hence optimise for the ones that they do use.

If one uses a seven tone 13th series tuning wherein any string might be the root and each succesive string an adjacent chord interval, it is suicide to correct the 3rds etc. so ET or Walter are the best compromises. Use a plain old E tuning from a six string steel, correct the 3rds and be happy, but you are limited in the variations in what you can play, even with slants wherein you use your ear to set the intervals.

I TOTALLY AGREE WITH YOU.

quote:

---

...just as scales other than 12 tone are ignored.

---

I'd like to offer some terminology that might help here. The term "perfect" is a problem, especially without definition. Saying anyone can define perfect as anything they want is a bit of a cop out. Within a single key, JI might be considered perfect because it is based on the small whole numbered ratios that correspond to natural string nodes and harmonics that sound the most pleasing to the ear and dont have beats. This is a natural phenomenon, and so is perfect according to nature.

But it turns out that different parts of nature are not always compatible with each other. JI in one key is not compatible with JI in other keys. Human voices, with infinitely variable pitch can sing JI in any key. But instruments with fixed pitches cannot. To deal with that we have the man-made equal tempered tuning. So if by "perfect" we mean according to the natural harmonics, then JI is the most "perfect." But if by "perfect" we mean "the most compatible for fixed pitch instruments attempting to play in all keys," then ET is more "perfect." So maybe we should use the terms "natural" and "compatible" rather than "perfect."

Playing perfectly can be done on steel. I have CD's w a number of perfect steel tracks by different players(perfect to my ears) And all of them use a lot more than 12 notes within an octave. How they tune is secondary IMO. I just enjoy their music.

Bengt Erlandsen

Two links about tuning and temperment.
http://www.xs4all.nl/~huygensf/english/index.html

http://www.xs4all.nl/~huygensf/english/temperament.html

[This message was edited by Bengt Erlandsen on 16 September 2003 at 03:28 AM.]

Thanks for your writings in this thread that has become high-level discussion, certainly not dissimilar to a colloquy. I want to thank you, and all of the efforts made by those who have shown very clearly, that they possess a wide range of knowledge, in the field of tuning a steel guitar. I am triply amazed after going over the wide ranges of thoughts, relating to personal details, and their willingness to share with others, the learned intricacies of tuning the steel guitar.

My intent in this thread was to point out the "close, but no cigar"
or silly iota of differences, that from my standpoint, exists in the tuning processess of the steel guitar.

Or perhaps the over-riding truth statement when discribing the tuning should be + or - E9th..or is that + or- C6th..etc....

and

considering we mostly play with Guitar players..if we both are out tune + or - a degree or so does that make us in tune with each other ? is that ok ?