|
Author
|
Topic: anybody else tune straight up 440?
|
Dan Tyack
Member From: Seattle, WA USA
|
posted 26 January 2005 07:25 PM
profile
John, I'm kind of with you on the C6th thing. Even though I still pretty much do JI on C6th, there are a lot more voicings I need to avoid than on the E9th. Of course, 4th stacks sound fine no matter which way you tune the thirds, so I am fine there (and I do love my 4th stacks). But I tend to play three note chord voicings on the C6th (I don't play without a bass on that neck very often if at all). quote:
Just curious, did your left hand instinctively try to correct the dissonance on track 2 by slightly slanting the bar.
Now that is a really good question. I know that players who use ET and play in tune must be doing some sort of bar compensation, but I can't figure out how to do it on that kind of playing. I was going for a kind of Lloyd Green style (without the fancy stuff which might get in the way of the topic), with doubling of notes (e.g. doubling the 4th and 8th string) and if you slant to flat the 3rd, then one of those doubled notes is going to be off. The second example was with straight 440 on all strings and changes. I tried to play it as good as I could, honest. I respect your observation, b0b (about the second not sounding out of tune), but to be honest with you, it makes my hair stand on end. I literally can't stand to listen to it (well I had to listen to it while playing it, which was hard enough). ------------------
www.tyack.com
[This message was edited by Dan Tyack on 26 January 2005 at 07:26 PM.] [This message was edited by Dan Tyack on 26 January 2005 at 07:27 PM.] |
Dan Tyack
Member From: Seattle, WA USA
|
posted 26 January 2005 07:35 PM
profile
Tom said quote:
Sort of makes you think that the fret marker is off - but we know that it is not
When positioning the bar, I always use the rule that the ear is always right, no matter what the fret marker says. Sometimes the fret marker is right, sometimes it isn't. Take the most basic example: have your trusted backup musicians give you their absolute best, most in tune E major chord. Now on the steel guitar (tuned in E) try to play the most perfectly in tune G# note (no pedals, on the E string). It's not going to be right on the 4th fret. At least to my ears. ------------------
www.tyack.com
|
Eric West
Member From: Portland, Oregon, USA
|
posted 26 January 2005 08:38 PM
profile
Dan. Very nice examples, and they both sounded very similarly intoned to me overall. I liked them and their fluidity.
Possibly the "nuance" i noticed, your being somebody used to hearing their thirds fifteen cents flat playing in automatic or "acquired" JI on an ET, or my personal taste for not hearing them that way. I hitherto went forthwith to my pore old proIII and tuned it straight up and played the wide voicings on "How Great Thou Art" in ET with my attendant cabinet drop. It sounded fine. As I get time I hereby promise to post what I can get into my USB. I'll even cut my reverb. I used a very common F lever B pedal combination coming out of the F/AB augmented in the tonic chord. It sounded pure. Using the JN tuning chart there would have been a difference of 28 cents between the sharp tuned 5th string, and the flat tuned 8th string. ( from both being -0- at 440. This is a simple 9+5 chord. The diminished is similarly plagued. I've tried them both, and neither could be "bent" into any pleasance. Mr McGann. I in no way intend to bring any of my travails apon thee, but you're right as rain. Especially about the G/B tuning on a guitar. (I remember "debeating" my thirds to play fuzz tone power bar chords, and then wondering why "Moon River" sounded so out of whack when I took the fuzz tone off. This was 40 years ago.) My explanation of "what's happened here" is that a whole bunch of pedal steel players, "discovered" that they could "tune the beats out" of chords, and play them MUCH more completely in other positions than instruments like the harp, or piano. There were even a couple "systems" that minimized the clashes playing two or maybe three positions the same way. The "problem" of the 3/16" fret misalignment on guitar, was magically "gone" due to the fret "suggestions" of the psg fretboard. It was all devised with the best of intentions, and "follow throughs" were done only to a certain "decimal point" and let go. Hey. Who was going to "call us" on them? Three main holes remain: One: More often than not, "We" have to play with other instruments that use ONLY a fixed pitch system. Until recently pianos could be dismissed as "chronically out of tune". This ended effectively in about 83 or 4 with the replacement of the "Helpinstil" or "Yammie MiniGrand", with the Korg, Yamaha, Ensonique, or other exactly tuned ET keyboards. (At least a durn sight closer than 28 cents..) Guitars and guitarists that tuned ET and didn't have chronic 3rd string 1st fret intonation problems or poor bridge string intonation adjustment still got a bad rap. Especially if they used spiderweb strings. NOW it was proveable that the best of them did indeed play "in tune". If anything, these electronic keyboards have vindicated well intoned and tuned guitar players. I've worked with several of them. Again, Problem #1: More often than not, "We" have to play with other instruments that use ONLY a fixed pitch system. Problem #2: With the Jeff Newmann Tuning Chart, (I'm sure there are others that "temper" the Strict JI more, but it is the most well known example.) There are 28 cent holes in commonly played chods that can not be "solved" by bar slanting. (Where are the other instruments while this is going on?) Problem #3: These systems of moving JI chords up and down the fret suggestions become impossibly complicated at each part of a substitution out of the harmonized scale. Problem #3a. Single notes played out of context using levers that are tuned a total of 28 cents between sharp and flat, are goin to have to be played slow enough that the "ear/hand" will take over, or it must be given that no single note passage should have to have all the notes within 28 cents of "in tune". (Harmony lines anyone?) ( Again. Where are the other instruments when this is going on?) In my mind, (in another part of the same asylum) these problems were fought with whole lives of past masters of the Baroque Period, whether arranging songs and writing perfect scores of groups of them to play in "beatless bliss". Builders/players of harpisicords used to flock to the "D Major" Conventions. In one "moment" JS Bach dashed it all to bits. For a time there was utter chaos. Undoubtably much more corporeal than this cyber battlefield. Probably a lot more drinking going on too. Sadly, few harpsichords escaped the bonfifre though the birds who previously gave their quills to them felt relieved I'm sure..... I don't know what his thinking was, but I can guess that he observed that the human ear could and would adjust to an Equal Tempermant System. In my opinon, he was right. Especially after hearing three hundred years or more of it. The JI Renniasance of the Pedal Steel Guitar was an admirable excersize, and the vehemence and acclaim of those practicing this midieval art is much to their credit. The JIers in the face of electronic keyboards and well intoned guitars sometimes merely point to fretless instruments, and say "See. They MUST be playing Just Intonation too." Then they realise apon careful reflection that in the larger mixed ensembles they are called apon to play in tune to all the fixed pitch instruments, and must supply the proper roots to the instruments that are either playing thirds on open strings, or are playing fixed pitch thirds. Not roots that are fifteen cents sharp. There are a LOT of people that tune "straight up". The JI Renniasance was a good fight, and many are out flying the flag, taking the field of bloody bandstand battle. Like all good runs though, it'll have to close out sometime.. Of all the recent revivals of it, I think our threads here and the succinct comments by Mr Emmons have made this a very good research source for questions of Tempermant of The Pedal Steel Guitar. At long last, I am relieved that it contains enough of "both sides" for "Beginners" to read and make their minds up. At least by my reading of the volumes. I was worried at first until in this thread particularly many others that "tune that way" have come out unafraid to share and explain their proclivities. I'm glad they did, thought I'd still tune that way if they hadn't. I will certainly tune the same way I have for 25 years, and I would expect others to tune the way they wish. I have my reasons, as I've explained at length, and I respect others' without calling their particular tastes "unsophisticated". (Dan. I'm at the Infamous Truck Stop off I-5 exit 307 on 4-5 Feb. It's become a bit of a musical battleground, (huh Larry...) but I personally guarantee your safety, free soft drinks and no cover.(Mr. Grafe attended recently and came out alive.)  ------------------
Eric L
Intonation Help flat - -----0----- + sharp [This message was edited by Eric West on 26 January 2005 at 09:58 PM.] |
Andy Greatrix
Member From: Edmonton Alberta
|
posted 26 January 2005 09:59 PM
profile
Is it possible to have the F note flattened only when you play it with the A peddle and in tune with the diminished chord when you don't? I see that with Mike Perlowins copedent, his F#'s are flattened when he engages his B peddle, making the F# a harmonic 6th note. |
Dan Tyack
Member From: Seattle, WA USA
|
posted 26 January 2005 10:18 PM
profile
Short comment:Eric, I do appreciate the humor in your posts, and do appreciate the arguments for ET. I accept that it's an ear thing. I suppose it could be blamed on my early musical training, which (such as it was) was in vocal music (church and other choirs). Plus singing barbershop and vaudville music with my father and grandfather. In those environments, you've got to have some sweet 3rds..... Which is why I posted the examples. It's obvious to me which one sounds 'in tune' but that's just my ear, and there's no point in getting technical about it. ------------------
www.tyack.com
|
Dan Tyack
Member From: Seattle, WA USA
|
posted 26 January 2005 11:41 PM
profile
One way to look at the battle that was won by JS Bach was that it was a tactical battle dealing with the technical limitations of a few fixed pitch instruments in order to have them be useful when playing in multiple keys. As a steel guitarist I see no reason to be bound by those limitations. Of course I do have many limitations introduced by the steel, but playing perfectly in tune (again, to my ear) in multiple keys isn't one of them.
------------------
www.tyack.com
|
John McGann
Member From: Boston, Massachusetts, USA
|
posted 27 January 2005 05:07 AM
profile
It's a good thing the instrument itself isn't complicated or we'd really be in trouble  Knowing for a fact that Paul Franklin swears by JI and Buddy "swears at" it makes me feel like each leg is being pulled apart from the other by an earthquake! And how does someone with "perfect pitch" deal with this? Is "perfect pitch" relative to JI? How do they deal with A7b913 away from a piano? Are they those other crazy people here on the ward with me? I've only got relative pitch!?!? ------------------
http://www.johnmcgann.com
Info for musicians, transcribers, technique tips and fun stuff. Joaquin Murphey transcription book, Rhythm Tuneup DVD and more...
[This message was edited by John McGann on 27 January 2005 at 05:14 AM.]
|
Ricky Davis
Moderator From: Spring, Texas USA
|
posted 27 January 2005 07:05 AM
profile
I have a Bass playing friend that has perfect pitch(he can tell you what notes your making while your talking and they are dead on). I tested him once and played a tone that was on purposely between a B and C note and he heard it as a flat C note. Then I played the C note straight up and he said it was a C note. Then I played a C and E note together and they were both equal temperment and he said that was a C root note and the 3rd harmony tone which was E; but the E note was Sharp as the relative 3rd tone to C...ha....>then I tuned the E note in perfect harmony to the C note and he said they were now in tune as a root and 3rd tone harmony. Then I played him that same E note that was in tune to to the C as a harmony; and he said it was a E note but a little flat as a E root tone....ha...
So go figure...
Ricky |
Doug Garrick
Member From: Rock Springs, WY, USA
|
posted 27 January 2005 07:06 AM
profile
Maybe the answer is in this book.Natasha Mostert's thriller The Other Side of Silence poses the question what would happen if the mystery of the Pythagorean Comma was solved. If the Pythagorean Comma should be eliminated, the world will be in possession of a perfect musical scale. This could have cosmic implications. Perhaps the Comma is forbidden fruit. Perhaps man is not meant to ever find a solution to this problem. But in The Other Side of Silence, four friends are setting out on a quest to solve the puzzle of perfect tuning, unaware that this could have cataclysmic consequences. They have discovered in the Pythagorean Comma the master key to the building blocks of the universe. If this key is ever turned, it could well push the world to the brink of chaos...
|
frank rogers
Member From: usa
|
posted 27 January 2005 07:50 AM
profile
Eric, you have nailed it in regard to the facts. It really is just as Eric explained it. If ,in fact a pianist could reach up and tweak his E's while he is all alone and composing in C or Ami he probably would. Fact of the matter is, he grows tolerant of this slight discrepancy and also notices that it doesn't "bug" him nearly as much when he plays with ensembles or orchestras. |
frank rogers
Member From: usa
|
posted 27 January 2005 08:03 AM
profile
BTW, The whole "perfect pitch" arguement really isn't a factor here and the whole question of "multiple keys" is not particularly relevant either. First, a person possessing this alleged perfect pitch has developed this talent in relation to pitches they have been exposed to. For instance the piano they grew up taking lessons on. Obviously that persons "perfect" pitch has been somewhat flawed by the reference pitches from the old family upright that was tuned every 15 years whether it needed it or not. Second, the problem with J.I. is a voicing issue not really a multiple key signature issue as bar adjustment can correct the "key" issue but not the multiple string "voicing" issue. |
Dennis Detweiler
Member From: Solon, Iowa, US
|
posted 27 January 2005 08:46 AM
profile
If each key (note) on a piano is tuned 440 and every note on a steel is tuned 440, they should sound in tune with each other. However, each key (note) is not tuned straight up 440 on a piano, I think? So, how do you sound in tune with the piano? If this is the case, then the steel's A's must be tuned to 440 to match the piano's A 440s, then what's next?  Seems like, to be in perfect tune with the piano, we have to tune each pedal and knee lever note with matching keys (notes) on a piano?
DD
Maybe this is why Lizzie Borden became a nuisance with an axe? |
Dan Tyack
Member From: Seattle, WA USA
|
posted 27 January 2005 09:58 AM
profile
Frank, perfect pitch is an issue. For people with true perfect pitch, the way the piano was tuned when they were first listening to music is immaterial. If they have true perfect pitch, they can hear the difference between a G# note in the key of E major, and an Ab note in the key of Eb major. This is what Ricky was describing. And in fact there is a difference (ask any string quartet musician). Which brings me to the issue about multiple keys. This is not only an issue, it is the reason why the tempered tuning for pianos was created, to enable them to play in all keys (slightly out of tune) rather than a few keys (in tune). Now we are so accustomed to hearing pianos that most of us don't hear the internal tuning conflicts, but they are there (and you don't need perfect pitch to hear them). There are many, many instruments that don't need tempering: all the strings, brass, woodwinds, and of course the ultimate musical instrument: the human voice. Ever wonder why the piano or other fixed pitch instruments are not part of standard symphonic ensamble playing? I wouldn't be surprised if tempering is a significant part of this. The steel guitar is one where there is a choice. Unlike the guitar or piano, tempering isn't required, because it is certainly possible to play in tune in any key. However, there are some advantages that I can understand to tempering (ET). I guess the simplistic view is that if reducing clash with ET instruments or constructing more complex chords from any string combination is most important, then ET makes more sense. If getting more perfectly intunated chords (with some restrictions as to string/pedal choice) is more important, than JI makes more sense. ------------------
www.tyack.com
|
frank rogers
Member From: usa
|
posted 27 January 2005 10:36 AM
profile
"I guess the simplistic view is that if reducing clash with ET instruments or constructing more complex chords from any string combination is most important, then ET makes more sense." I agree. Call it "simplistic" if you like, but I do enjoy playing with other musicians and I do like to construct more "complex" voicings, harmonies, and chords from time to time. BTW, I respectfully appreciate all opinions regarding this question. My comments are strictly IMHO.[This message was edited by frank rogers on 27 January 2005 at 10:40 AM.] |
Dan Tyack
Member From: Seattle, WA USA
|
posted 27 January 2005 12:34 PM
profile
Frank, I wasn't saying that using ET is simplistic, I was saying by reducing the reason for using ET to those two factors, *my* analysis of it is simplistic. Sorry for the confusion.------------------
www.tyack.com
|
frank rogers
Member From: usa
|
posted 27 January 2005 12:43 PM
profile
Thanks Dan,no problem. BTW, I have always admired your playing, JI or ET not withstanding. F.R. |
Rick Schmidt
Member From: Carlsbad, CA. USA
|
posted 27 January 2005 01:02 PM
profile
Geez...just like a bad car wreck, I just HAD to look again....eeek....Oh the humanity! Somebody shoot me next time.  |
Bobby Lee
Sysop From: Cloverdale, North California, USA
|
posted 27 January 2005 03:58 PM
profile
quote:
Seems like, to be in perfect tune with the piano, we have to tune each pedal and knee lever note with matching keys (notes) on a piano?
That would be true only if you never use the bar. If you tune your B string to the piano's B, it won't necessarily make the 3rd fret B on the G# string sound in tune.
Back to Dan's samples... on the second sample (ET) there was less confidence in his playing. That goes back to a point that Eric West made. If you believe you are in tune and play with authority, it will sound better to the audience. I'd like to hear Eric play the same piece in ET, for comparison. |
Dan Tyack
Member From: Seattle, WA USA
|
posted 27 January 2005 05:39 PM
profile
Good point, b0b. The purpose of my examples was to show why *I* don't play ET. Which is because I don't like the way it sounds to my ears. If I spent a lot of time playing ET I am sure I could sound better. (but I'd probably rather quit pedal steel and play lap steel tuned to DADGAD). ------------------
www.tyack.com
|
Dan Tyack
Member From: Seattle, WA USA
|
posted 27 January 2005 05:40 PM
profile
BTW, anybody recognize the song? ------------------
www.tyack.com
|
Eric West
Member From: Portland, Oregon, USA
|
posted 27 January 2005 05:51 PM
profile
Dan. I enjoyed your piece, and I tried to put my comparison into words. Perhaps it showed your slight discomfort with a tuning you don't care for. (* kind of like exibiting kissing technique on a girl one considers skightly unattractive ) It was not meant to be a criticism, and I don't think you took it that way. That might be why they sounded similar to me in different ways. Does that make sense?The three main problems with tuning the beats out of chords playing out of the harmonized scale, in my mind stand. Other instruments playing the "same" notes or harmonizing with them. Single notes, and gaps in the total system, like the F lever no A pedal. b0b. I've got Sunday nite set aside to post some examples. Nothing fancy, but I can indeed show what I mean. I'm not going to start detuning stuff to show how it sounds "bad" to me. All the other points, including the admission of Bach's Victory, and the undeniability of the Pythagorian Comma, were well taken. It didn't occur to me that this was a midieval resurgence until lately, and it is plagued by the things that plagued the midievals. ET is not a new occurrance either. JS Bach didn't "invent it" anymore than Edison "invented" electricity. In a way, it's beautiful to watch the whole thing run it's course in these modern times.. There are certainly more capabilities of instrumentation than in his day, and an equally pesky set of inequities. Gotta run. I've got a 5 hour space to cram in rehearsal for this weekend, a half hour between coming home from work tomorrow nite and loading out, and I'm not going to write another "treatise from a nut ward" tonite. I won't have my rig back here til Sunday. Things will change come Valentines' Day and My Marrs gets here. I'm sure I'll be 'excused' for the evening.
EJL
[This message was edited by Eric West on 27 January 2005 at 05:56 PM.]
|
b0b
Sysop From: Cloverdale, California, USA
|
posted 27 January 2005 06:52 PM
profile
quote:
It didn't occur to me that this was a midieval resurgence until lately, and it is plagued by the things that plagued the midievals.
I think the current ET trend is MIDIevil. quote:
ET is not a new occurrance either. JS Bach didn't "invent it" anymore than Edison "invented" electricity.
As I understand it, Bach didn't even like equal temperament. There were quite a few different temperaments in use in Bach's time, and ET was considered the ugliest of the bunch. The prevailing theory of the day was that each key should have its own "color", defined by the difference in scale intervals. In ET, all of the scale intervals are the same in every key. |
b0b
Sysop From: Cloverdale, California, USA
|
posted 27 January 2005 06:57 PM
profile
Dan, I think it was a Jagger/Richards tune called "As Tears Go By", or something like that. Pretty tune. |
Eric West
Member From: Portland, Oregon, USA
|
posted 27 January 2005 06:59 PM
profile
quote:
In ET, all of the scale intervals are the same in every key. -b0b-
It's about time somebody got it..
quote:
Do your car Bob.. -cute kids in a recent commercial-
EJL |
Tom Gorr
Member From: Three Hills, Alberta
|
posted 27 January 2005 08:11 PM
profile
Dan - in case there's confusion - what I was getting at with the 4th fret marker was the fact that a fourth fret harmonic is fractions of an inch below the fret marker position. Nothing to do with bar position at all...Using a fourth fret harmonic as a tuning reference is a JI approach because it fits into the 'modal vibration' concept that underlies the JI approach.By contrast, fret positions are logarithmic intervals (or is it exponential??) that underlie the ET approach. Stated another way - consider what the fret marker positions would need to be to match a pure JI approach....not pretty...ET is more compatible with our visual understanding of tuned intervals. Eric made this point more subtly on a MUCH earlier post. I remain agnostic/ambivalent - because the logarithmic method and the fractional method are two different tuning approaches that both have a physical and mathematical basis albeit different. The fact that the two entirely different 'mathematical' aspects of the systems approximate each other as closely as they do is particularly intriguing to me anyway. Hell I read books on prime numbers just for fun....if that means anything. I think the debate is more about what system each of us has become comfortable working with. |
frank rogers
Member From: usa
|
posted 27 January 2005 08:14 PM
profile
ET here on both tunings: http://www.geocities.com/frsteel/index.html |
Bob Blair
Member From: Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
|
posted 27 January 2005 08:55 PM
profile
Yep, "As Tears Go By". I really enjoyed it Dan. |
Dan Tyack
Member From: Seattle, WA USA
|
posted 27 January 2005 09:16 PM
profile
Frank! You definitely make ET sing. I really enjoyed those cuts. Bring 'em on!------------------
www.tyack.com
|
Dan Tyack
Member From: Seattle, WA USA
|
posted 27 January 2005 09:38 PM
profile
Tom said quote:
Stated another way - consider what the fret marker positions would need to be to match a pure JI approach....not pretty...ET is more compatible with our visual understanding of tuned intervals.
I think we don't disagree here. In the JI world, fret markers are a guide, not an absolute. The ET approach is more compatible with a visual approach to the fretboard, whereas the JI is more compatible with an audible aproach. The fact that the fret markers don't match the harmonic points is simply an example of the conflict between the physics of music and ET. I am reminded of the past ruling of the Alabama legislature to round PI to 3.0. It did make things a lot easier to calculate, but it didn't change the underlying physical laws. ------------------
www.tyack.com
|
frank rogers
Member From: usa
|
posted 28 January 2005 10:28 AM
profile
Thanks Dan!! |
Dale Bessant
Member From: Gatineau, Quebec, Canada
|
posted 05 February 2005 06:53 PM
profile
Who started this thread, I forgot..I tune by ear Ive tried tuning staight up and it sounds just sad,real sad to my ear....... |
The Steel Guitar Forum
