I don't have a "tuning argument" to settle.

I"m not the one with all the arguements, insults, snide remarks, and grade school "challenges".

As for "Truck Drivers", I hesitate to insult other people's professions, or their commercial facilities, however subtly.

(The only argument I ever settle there is how much I get paid. It's pretty easy to prove.)

I'm not being shown why a "Code Writers Ball" or a "High Tech Break Room" would be brimming with common sense.

I'd go for a "Rest Home" I were trying to win a "tuning argument". Maybe just a bar.

I've always tuned the most simple way I could. I take the advice of the best in the field, if for no other reason than it's good sound advice.

I don't see spending another night trying to trade witticisms with people that can't read, spell, or punctuate, let alone show the simplicity of their points nor the validity of their complexities, and then trail off into vague snide remarks, and condescensions.

Bill, are you seeing any holes in all this "complexity", and what people try to cover them up with?

Hope I've helped you see them.

This is after all, for your benefit.

Not mine.

EJL

[This message was edited by Eric West on 01 December 2004 at 06:17 PM.]

"I don't see spending another night trying to trade witticisms..."

We're gonna hold ya to this one!

As others have already noted we are all newbies to a discussion that has flourished since the 17th or 18th century. (For the lefties, relax, the exact date is not important, and for the righties studying older music theory is relevant; no names need to be memorized.) The newer tuning devices allow me to try new combinations and evaluate my ear. A mix of JI and Et will have to coexist on my rig because that what my ear likes, and I have not fostered an addiction to a tuner.

I am very right brained, but I teach of very left brained, postdoctoral students. They thrive on equations, algorithms, and complex acronyms to solve what I consider very intuitive problems. I envy their ability to store this information. We were discussing a procedure that involved placement. In some respects, much like placing the bar or being well tuned. One of the students relayed his calculations for placement and asked how I did it. I told him that I could just tell it was in the right place.

I own electronic tuners, but I find I tune by ear at a gig to some pleasing temperament of my own. I do fiddle with them when I practice to achieve the nirvana of the left brained folks, but I never get there. I even own a Peterson.

quote:

---

I"m not the one with all the arguements, insults, snide remarks, and grade school "challenges".

---

The examples Bob Hoffnar posted -- although very pretty -- clearly weren't meant to show off his "hot licks," just how he meshed with other instruments. What's the harm in wanting to hear the same from you? So what if you don't have any studio-quality stuff you're proud of to post; surely you have something that at least shows enough about your tuning to give weight to all you've written about it. Aren't we all basically here to learn from each other?

If you suspect there's some hidden intent behind what I'm saying, I honestly don't think so. It's just that, if you're really trying to edify, something to listen to is worth a heckuva lot more than something to read.

BTW: I listened to the bit you posted a long time ago, and thought it was sweet. What's wrong with some more?

Jeff

[This message was edited by Jeff A. Smith on 01 December 2004 at 07:46 PM.]

I learn something on every one of these tuning threads, including from your comments. Once we had both Paul Franklin, Jr. and Buddy Emmons sharing their experience and views. Okay, Buddy mistakenly got my name confused with Bill Doggett, the R&B keyboard guy who had a monster hit with "Honkeytonk, Parts 1 & 2." Then, again, he may have been jiving me - he does that.

I've got a few more thoughts that might plug up some of the "holes" you are concerned about. But I got to give it a rest this evening, due to other demands on my insane life.

As far as sound and playing experiments go, the best ones for my money would be to compile a list of cuts of a master like BE playing both ET and JI, on a variety of stuff, with a variety of accompanying instruments. Likewise, PF or any other top pro. Jim Cohen mentioned listening to his own tracks done ET and JI with a piano. I'd sure love to hear those tracks. I don't know if I'd put you and Hofnar down anywhere near my low level, but if I play my tuning with bad intonation, it might not be because of the tuning - you know what I mean?

I did post some licks once, and just never got a real kick out of it. I asked people to post some of their favorite licks. Nobody did, and somebody noted that I used a lot of reverb. I posted a bunch of Pete's stuff, and though I thought it pretty sounded good, I took it down due to a conflict with the person that owned it.

Bill.

What's happened here, and I re-read the whole thread inbetween my practicing one of Seymour's arrangements, was pretty simple.

I posted that FOR ME, it was easier to tune everything straight up, and over the years to learn how to play and expect to hear things on the bandstand that way. I posted that I have been doing this for 24 steady years on psg. I noted it wasn't real "easy", but that I had yet to see a comprehensive JI method that 1. Allowed you to be in tune with tuned fixed pitch instruments, and 2. Allowed you to be in tune with yourself except for a couple positions at most.

Then it seemed to degenerate.

I seemed to have been singled out for being not possibly sophisticated enough to "train my ear to ET". And that I couldn't possibly tune that way "without a tuner", and that because Paul Franklin or Jeff Newmann don't have their ears trained to hear ET that I am somehow claiming to be "above them".

Then it went downhill further. (Besides Mr Hoffnar telling me that my teacher "told them all about Just Intonation and Tempered Tunings" when in my two years of study with him, I miraculously missed a single word from him about it.)

People accusing me of "knowing everything". Threatening to "bring a recorder out to my gigs" and presumably posting the most unflattering clips of it here to make fun of me and the band I play with, and then making fun of the places I play.

Bill, don't be afraid to let these people confuse you, drag you out to their derision, and try and fill your head full of crap they can't 'splain.

Like I said, I think it's pretty clear what happens when peoples' insecurities come to light.

Before all of this I was thinking of posting what I've come up with after working on a couple Seymour tunes, AND I was thinking of having Mr Marrs include a couple extra changer rods to adjust my G#s and see if they might be able to be "tempered" more when making my A/F combo if I decided to "try" some over adjusted tunings.

After reading all this brainless crap.

I'll do neither. Not for a while anyhow.

Make your own mind up.

You're the one that will have to live with your resolve, or the lack of it.

Enjoy

EJL

Your thoughts are never boring, nor your manners insulting, snide, or threatening. Nor do I sense your taking my conflagrations that way. I don't care if you play like Buddy Evans, or can play not a lick. You seem pretty secure.

I'd love to have time to take the JI side against your "set in stone 'ET argument'".

I could hold my own, though I don't tend to do exhaustive research....

Not to worry about your "Stature" playing wise as you mentioned. I don't just speak for myself on that one....

Never quit beating a dead horse except to stuff some more oats in his mouth.

huh b0b..

EJL

[This message was edited by Eric West on 01 December 2004 at 09:13 PM.]

And I don't know very many recordings that were made using ET. So put some up.

Somehow I'm surprised that you state that "There isn't any formal theory for recording JI Instruments with Fixed Pitch Instruments."

I haven't even been that bold. I'd even settle for an "informal one" that doesn't consist of a bunch of obfuscation and snide aspersions.

quote:

---

I’ve tuned both ways an equal amount of years and the albums I’ve recorded over twenty years ago speak for the difference. My primary reason for tuning ET is to get everything out of the guitar that it’s capable of delivering. To me that’s what you should expect out of any musical instrument. Tuning ET has allowed me to use pedals and pedal combinations never before possible when I had to compromise. Besides, I figure if somebody can get away with tuning 9 cents flat to every other instrument, then I’m home free. -Buddy Emmons-

---

I know I said I wouldn't involve him on this mess, but I lied.

You go with Bob. You've got lots of company on this thread.

Did you have an answer for Bill, or are you just joining the Rat Pack that's gnawing away at the remaining bloody nub that used to be me?

You're showing up kind of late for the good stuff.

EJL

[This message was edited by what was left of Poor Old Eric West on 01 December 2004 at 10:39 PM. DAMN late for having to get up at 0500 and haul 33 tons of sand..]

I don't know why you seem to take this personally, but I don't see why asking to hear an example of in tune playing should be considered to be contraversial.

More possibly you can ask some of these rocket scientists that consider "chords with beats" out of tune. I like, and actually expect to hear them with beats.

Call me whatever you want for my preference, from a dullard to a know-it-all. Get creative.

Personally? Well, if I wasn't addressed personally in these posts I wouldn't take it that way, Dan. Maybe you can point me to one that I answered that I wasn't personally addressed in.

I really got to run.

I'll be back I'm sure to see what flower I'm going to get beaten with tomorrow...

EJL

[This message was edited by Eric West on 01 December 2004 at 11:04 PM.]

A couple of thoughts, that I'm obviously not afraid to post.

The "Ear" is a wonderful thing. Most of us that have played music most of our lives on any instrument, have better than average ones.

To have it develop intentionally or unintentionally is not always a good thing.

Mainly on a bandstand with other instruments with slightly different intonation, and especially behind some vocalists.

I have a great example that dawned on me today. I have worked with several fiddle players. My very favorite was a kid named James Mason. I only played with Donny Herron once that I barely remember, but he was an ace for sure. James ALWAYS played in tune. He played against his open strings on a strobe tuned fiddle. He rarely played in a closed position. This, according to him, kept him from "following things" that were out of tune. I felt he was not one of the things I had to ignore with my intonation.

Another one here locally, I played with a lot, just as classically trained, played differently. He had the habit of playing to "what he heard", and in this case it was a horribly flat singing female. Without exception, he played flat when she "sang".. With luck, he's found vocalists that don't "drag him off". It drove me crazy, and I refused to sink with them. I suppose I could have..

Now. My point is, (for factory workers that have poor reading comprehension, so that I don't "miss" them,) that often we (me and the mouse in my pocket) play contrary to what we "hear". Very often.

It's not the "easiest route". Especially with ear splitting volumes, however, in fact a lot of our "sensitivities" dull at bandstand volumes.

I"m going to ruin my whole 10,000 word career destroying multi-tribe, by letting it go that often in my basement, I don't tune at all if it sounds good, and I've even caught myself flatting my G#s and C#s, just to make it sound a little less sharp. Then, on stage, when I am in tune (and I do it over and over), I end up on open fat loud chords, in unison with the piano or guitar, and listening to the recordings, they sound just the way I want them to sound.

I say, tune it however you want to and play it like you stole it.

How about it Bill?

Night kids.

EJL

[This message was edited by Eric West on 02 December 2004 at 04:36 PM.]

quote:

---

How about it Bill?

---

Interestingly, with the TYC demos I've posted on The Forum, I originally recorded the closing chord in something very close to JI because I thought it sounded sweeter than my usual ET tuning. The band member who asked me to track PSG for the tune wasn't altogether happy with the sound of that chord as it rang out. I retracked the last chord in ET, and he loved it. And this band member is a tenured musician whose opinion I quite respect. So much for assuming the world thinks JI sounds sweeter than ET.

I too have tried both JI and ET and I do a fair share of session work as well as live.

After hearing my Steel on several recordings with both tunings....it was obvious to me that JI sounded better....
I sound more in tune with the rest of the instruments.

Yes, Most of Nashville tunes JI for the same reason ....and Nashville pickers are the standard by which the rest of the world is measured to some degree.

I have a couple of friends who tune ET...but they are definitely in the minority. ...oddly enough...for them, they sound in tune...as do I when I play.

yes Eric, I agree tune the way you want...and play it like you stole it!!!
I love that!

Night folks,
b

------------------
MSA Millennium D10, Walker Stereo Steel, Stone Tree Custom Tele, LINE 6 Vetta II and POD XT PRO

Pianos have three strings which are slightly detuned so as to achieve a vibrato effect. Tuning the three strings perfectly together would cancel out the vibrato which provides "compensation" (JI), and allows the piano to sound in tune. Electronic pianos have the built in vibrato so as to disguise the "compensation".

I believe the same tuning principle (JI) should apply to steel guitar in varying degrees relative to the ear of the player. The fact we don't have three strings for every note in our tuning similar to that of a piano, we use our bar for vibrato to create "compensation".

Jim, b0b covered somewhere above what happens when a JI player centers his chord around an ET pitch. The idea is that the JI player will naturally play the whole chord slightly sharp of the ET pitch, so that the tonic and 5th are slightly above ET and the flatter JI 3rd is slightly below ET. On balance it sounds good, supposedly with fewer beats than the perfect ET chord. So this is not exactly playing ET, in that the chord on your JI instrument is not ET within itself. But because of your automatic bar compensation, you are playing close to ET in terms of the fundamental you are matching your chord to. This fundamental itself may be JI or ET, depending on what instrument (or vocal) you are playing to by ear.

This works because most people's ears do not notice differences of less than 5 cents. Thus, even though the difference between the JI 3rd and tonic may be noticeably more than 5 cents, when the chord is centered on an ET fundamental, the difference between either the tonic or 3rd and the ET fundamental will be less than 5 cents, and so not noticeable. I realize many musicians can hear differences less than 5 cents playing alone in a quiet room. But I think it is probably true that even most musicians with good ears are not offended by differences less than 5 cents in live music of ensembles. This seems to be how variable-pitch instruments and fixed-pitch instruments have played together from time immemorable.

They mostly worry about this stuff only in music schools. The reason us steelers bet so caught up in this is that the steel guitar is a very unique instrument. Correct me if I am wrong, but I cannot think a a single other variable-pitched instrument that plays chords. Horns clearly do not. Although strings sometimes play double stops, technically two notes are not a chord. Forgetting that technicality, they still have to play the two notes in tune with each other, so they can have this problem, but double stops are pretty rare in the string world. All the other instruments I can think of that play chords are fixed-pitch, and so must play ET. A piano tuned JI in a single key, cannot even play all the chords in that one key JI, much less other keys.

Because, of the ease of tuning guitars between songs, you can actually tune a guitar almost JI for one key, and get pretty good JI for a few of the main chords, such as the I, IV and V. Other chords, such as the II and VI will be way off. But because of this, many guitar players tune close to JI for a single key. It works fair for keys with some of the same chords. So if you tune JI to an E chord, your A and B chords will be pretty good. And you can go to the key of A, and get the A, D and E chords, pretty good. Also bar chords anywhere up the neck work pretty good if it is the bar configuration you tuned to. But if you go to the key of G or C, you are in real trouble. If you quickly tune JI to a G or C chord, then you can play in these two keys fairly well. I see countless country, bluegrass, folk and blues guitarists doing this retuning thing and staying closer to JI than ET for their songs with simple chords. When you get to Jazz and classical styles with more complicated chord progressions this doesn't work, and those players are more likely to tune straight up ET.

With the steel guitar, we can have a movable JI chord. I don't know of any other instrument that has that. Also, even when we use inversions that change the string that is the JI 3rd, on pedal steel we can often tune that third (and whatever string was the third in the previous inversion) with independent pedal or lever stops that don't affect the open string tuning. So you can get way more chords JI than a regular guitar. But eventually, if you add enough strings to fill out the whole scale and even some of the chromatic scale, and as you get more pedal and lever combinations, you arrive at combinations of open strings, pedals or levers that can't be JI. Part of our individual preferences for JI or ET derives from how much we personally use the simple basic positions and how much we use a greater variety of other positions. It's an amazing damn instrument.

[This message was edited by David Doggett on 07 December 2004 at 08:11 AM.]

The music job is the real world of playing, not a classroom exercise.

www.genejones.com

[This message was edited by Gene Jones on 03 December 2004 at 10:37 AM.]

I appreciate your exceptional ability to communicate your thoughts.

Jim P....Thank you for your comments and the way you presented them.

In answer to your question "in tune to what"?....in tune relative to the standard tuning pitch accepted the world over, plus the stretch necessary (JI) to make it sound in tune!

I would still like to know if you tune "everything" straight up 440. If you do and believe you're in tune, then you're in tune to your ear, which is what's most important.

Were I to hear you play, you might convince me ET works across the board, however I'm sure you can respect the fact that I would have to hear it to believe it regardless of who is playing. In the meantime I will certainly accept your word that you believe it sounds in tune.

quote:

---

A piano would sound horribly out of tune were it to be tuned ET. Pianos are tuned using a "stretch" method, which as I see it....is JI.

---

quote:

---

b0b -- what's meantone?

---

quote:

---

Shown is a plot of actual measurements of a piano tuned by a skilled tuner, along with a curve resulting from the average of many such measurements:

---

quote:

---

I have yet to see a well known steel player say they tune every string and every pedal and knee lever to ET, and unless they do, it would appear to me their ear agrees with the principals of JI. -Reece Anderson-

---

Actually when I posted my Armageddon query as a bush league bar/club/truckstop player, I had no idea that there were so many people that flattened or sharpened things to fit "their ears". I was extremely surprised that I had company in not doing it for reasons other than simpleminded laziness.

quote:

---

My apologies for not explaining up front Bill, but I do tune everything ET. Compensation is what I had to deal with tuning the old way but now it’s a thing of the past. I may go a cent or so flat in some cases but strictly to handle temp changes under certain conditions.
Also when I hear a JI steel third in a ET track, flat is the only word I can come up with. -Buddy Emmons-

---

quote:

---

I’ve tuned both ways an equal amount of years and the albums I’ve recorded over twenty years ago speak for the difference. My primary reason for tuning ET is to get everything out of the guitar that it’s capable of delivering. To me that’s what you should expect out of any musical instrument. Tuning ET has allowed me to use pedals and pedal combinations never before possible when I had to compromise. Besides, I figure if somebody can get away with tuning 9 cents flat to every other instrument, then I’m home free. -Buddy Emmons-

---

Of course it is an instrument that can move beatless chords "up and down". Correctly, the only one I know of. Certainly a Piano cannot do it without extremely complicated computer processing.

The limitation that seem to be glossed over is that there doesn't seem to be a comprehensive method, machine compensation system that allowes Beatlessness in every (more than three or at the most) pedal/lever inversion. If there is, I'd like to see it, or read it, and in the hundreds of Beatless Tuning posts I've read, I haven't read or even heard about "One". There's invariably more than one inversion that's unacceptably dissonant.

Also, the single notes, and moving chords, and/or partial chords, using pedals or knee levers to get one note out of the context of the "Beatless" chord that it is part of is a dissonance far greater than the "ET" by simple mechanical limitations.

Those are two central incongrueties of the "moving beatless chord".

The third is playing with fixed pitch instruments such as guitars and pianae.

Now, the way the "arguement" runs it's course typically, no matter how much simple information is put forth, ot how many others such as I post the "Stretch Tuning Chart for Piano Tuners" is getting predictable.

Somewhere after the second page, somebody kind of gets up, straightens their pants, yawns and says "It's all too complicated", and heads out of the day room.

Then, the hangers on that want the simple answers meet with fates that aren't quite so genteel.

"Oh Well", somebody says, "Even if you don't tune beatlessly, you play beatlessly".

What??

In my case, I watched a string of challenges, a series of snide remarks, stupid aspersions, and As Andy Griffith used to say, "I don't know what all... ". None of which affect the steady, low level, though well paid jobs that I have, or will continue getting.

Can I hear "out of tune stuff"?. Oh Mama! I've been listening to an "oldies station" that plays all the cover tunes from Eddy Rabbit, Reba, Charlie P, and others from the 70s and 80s. Mostly it's vocals, or obviously overdubbed studio licks and chords. It all fits WELL within what I consider to be good music. Certainly as well and better than I ever played most of it.

Do I agree that we should all just agree that there's too much tedious information, and that the enormity of it all makes it all useless to be able to say that you have a "simple method of tuning that you stand behind"?

No.

I'll stick with the way Mr Emmons tunes.

I've heard Mr Myrick tunes that way too.

It seems that Rick Schmidt tunes that way.

All the changes, All the strings, tuned straight up. Just like I have for 25 years.

Way before I knew that anybody either did or didn't.

If nothing else, I can always get a job playing with the fat and the ugly... and there's certainly nothing wrong with that .

I agree totally with everybody.

Especially at this holy time of the year.

Bless you all.

I'm praying for you.

Gotta do it at the gig though, I"m late..

Eric L.

PS. I wonder how Bobbe Seymour tunes....

[This message was edited by Eric West on 03 December 2004 at 06:02 PM.]