| Author |
Topic: Evolution of Pedals and Knee Levers |
Jeremy Threlfall
From:
now in Western Australia
|
Posted 8 Jan 2009 5:09 pm |
|
Herb - I'd go with your impression over my assumption any day! 
Shobuds first knee lever would have been a left moving E lower, I suppose. And it was on the right knee I gather.
My shakey hypothesis still stands. On the right requires a shorter rod. Reverse mechanism or no.
And even though it is closer to fouling the changer mechanism on the right, it is further from fouling any mechanism associated with the pedals on the left side.
btw, my E lower is RKR, and the raise is RKL |
|
|
|
Herb Steiner
From:
Spicewood TX 78669
|
Posted 8 Jan 2009 5:25 pm
|
|
Jeremy
If your Pro-1 is from the early 70's, it originally came with one lever, an RKL. I'll wager the RKR was probably added later.
My first Sho~Bud was a 1967 guitar and had one lever, a RKL. My next Sho~Bud was a 1970 Professional, which had 2 levers... a RKL and a LKL. Those were also standard for the first Pro-II line to appear. The Pro-III and the LDG came with 4 levers standard, in the positions we see today.
_________________
My rig: Infinity and Telonics.
Son, we live in a world with walls, and those walls have to be guarded by men with steel guitars. Who's gonna do it? You? You, Lt. Weinberg? |
|
|
|
Jeremy Threlfall
From:
now in Western Australia
|
Posted 8 Jan 2009 5:57 pm
|
|
Herb
No mine is an 84 short body, with 4 levers.
As I say, my E lower is a right-moving lever, but I was aware that the first Sho-bud lever was a right-knee left-moving lever.
If the second lever was a left-knee left-moving lever, then it appears that any saving in rod length by positioning the lever on the right (my assumption) was less than savings associated with avoiding a reversing mechanism (your impression)
and the savings from avoiding all the bellcranks associated with the pedals is obviously less than the savings from avoiding a reversing mechanism ...
sounds logical to me ....
 |
|
|
|
David Doggett
From:
Bawl'mer, MD (formerly of MS, Nawluns, Gnashville, Knocksville, Lost Angeles, Bahsten. and Philly)
|
Posted 8 Jan 2009 9:48 pm
|
|
I don't know whether manufacturers were originally placing levers for their own purposes, or for the preferences of players. I think with the old pull-and-release changers, raise levers moved left, and lower levers moved right. Then they developed the all-pull changer and reversing mechanisms, and they could accommodate anything the player wanted.
Although Lloyd seems to have put his F lever as LKR, most players with Emmons pedals put the F lever on LKL, so when you twist your ankle left onto the A pedal, you just flop your knee left also. There was a thread on the old Forum in which Buddy Emmons and Paul Franklin, Jr. discussed the merits of having the F lever and E-lower lever on the same leg. Emmons prefers them on the same leg, because you never use them at the same time; therefore, if they are on the same leg, it leaves the other leg for things that might be used at the same time. It is an argument of efficiency. Franklin prefers the E levers on separate legs, because you can transition between them more smoothly. So I figure whichever way you do it you will be in very good company. |
|
|
|
John McGann
From:
Boston, Massachusetts, USA * R.I.P.
|
Posted 9 Jan 2009 4:00 am
|
|
From Herb Steiner:
| Quote: |
The F# and D# strings should be called the "diatonic strings." I prefer the tuning referred to as the "E9 Diatonic."
The name "E9 Chromatic" itself is an anachronism. The tuning was originally called the "E9 Chromatic" to infer that the two extra strings were included in the original E9th tuning. During this time, 8-string steel guitars were still being made and considered "current."
The two strings have, for decades now, been assumed to be part of the tuning. Therefore the appendage "Chromatic" is totally unncessary. |
It depends on your perspective. From a music theory standpoint, the tuning without the D# on top is an E9 chord. That chord can be seen as "born" from the E7 mode (A major scale from E to E, E F# G# A B C# D).
Adding the D# note (function is maj7) to a dom 7 tuning IS adding a "chromatic" note, since you are adding another pitch that varies from the E7 mode (and as we all know, it clashes the ninth D string)...so it's not an anachronism as far as theory goes; it is musically correct to call it E9 Chromatic, regardless of how long it's been part of the tuning.
C6 is also fine, the F is out of the chord but not the scale; besides, "Fmaj7 9 13 tuning" makes civilian's eyes glaze over
_________________
http://www.johnmcgann.com
Associate Professor, Berklee College of Music
Info for musicians, technique tips etc. Joaquin Murphey transcription book, Instructional DVDs, books and more... |
|
|
|
C Dixon
From:
Duluth, GA USA
|
Posted 9 Jan 2009 8:35 am
|
|
It has been my observation that most pedal steel guitar players do not read music. IMO, this of course is due to the fact they were not trained in musical theory.
BUT...........
In ANY endeavor, regardless of one's education, we tend to pick up cliche's, words and phrases that we use often, whether we understand them or not. This I believe, is a human tendency.
Thus the word "chromatic" found its way into the E9th tuning because (I believe) two things occurred:
1. The location of the strings, and HOW they are played.
2. The fact that they were "sharped" notes.
And thus why the F note in the "back neck" was never refered to as a "chromatic string".
I liken it to this scenario. Common harmonicas have no sharps or flats. BUT it is pretty much commonly known that more professional harmonicas have that "Chromatic" button, that shifts the notes to sharped or flatted notes, like the piano has intrinsically with its "black" keys.
So, I believe that when Buddy Emmons added the D# and the F# strings to the basic E9th tuning; PLUS how they are often played (covered up or uncovered up as needed); AND the fact that they are sharped notes; caused the lessor educated in musical theory; to assume that the word "chromatic" was correct.
Since Shot Jackson was the one who did the work (NO disrespect whatsoever); it would be typical to use a word he did not fully understand. And once it was used; it not only sounded good; but others quickly followed suit; who were also (in most cases) not musically trained. And it simply stuck.
Two examples:
1. Shot always called the 3rd string Ab instead of G#. And he would let you have it with a 2 X 4 if you questioned it. 
2. The word "irregardless". There is no such word. The "irr" is superfluous (not necessary). IE: Regarless means "without regard". Irregardless means "without without regard". But most of us say it all the time.
If you think about it, how many times has someone used words, terms or phrases incorrectly, in a world where you have been trained thoroughly, and ya tend to cringe. As if to say, "Don't you know that is incorrect?".
Such as musicians as well as non musicians calling our bars, "slides". And if you are not in the most humble of mood, ya might jes' add a few "expletives deleted". If'na ya git me drift. 
Or that is my take on it.
Have wonderful Joy-filled days, all of "yah's", as the this new year unfolds. And may Jesus richly bless you always.
carl
_________________
A broken heart + †= a new heart. |
|
|
|
Dave Zirbel
From:
Sebastopol, CA USA
|
Posted 10 Jan 2009 12:12 am
|
|
Hey David Doggett, (or any other steel historian),
was that tuning of Jimmy Day you posted early in this thread the tuning Jimmy used for his Golden Hits record?
Dave |
|
|
|
David Doggett
From:
Bawl'mer, MD (formerly of MS, Nawluns, Gnashville, Knocksville, Lost Angeles, Bahsten. and Philly)
|
Posted 10 Jan 2009 11:17 am
|
|
| I don't know what tuning he used on any specific recordings. I would imagine he had more stuff in his copedent by then. That early Day copedent in my post is really just my guess based on the common knowledge that after Jimmy and Buddy split the pedals (in reverse order), Jimmy put an E in the middle of the tuning. |
|
|
|
Tracy Sheehan
From:
Fort Worth, Texas, USA
|
Posted 10 Jan 2009 2:26 pm Re:
|
|
To me and this is only my worthless opinion i still believe it is what one gets used to.Back in the 50s when we added the Issac pedal i added a crude knee lever to my string master to get the 9th on the C6th neck.I tuned the 9th down to D to stop the string breakage which was so common on the fenders.I still tune to D9th.I can also use more heavey gauge strings for a better tone IMO.
I did the same when i got my first pedal Fender.Added a knee to get the 9th on the string which Bobbe Garret did later on many of Hank Thompsons songs.
After the 10 stringers came out i discovered too late 99% of the C6th chords or what ever could be done on the 9th tuning by reversing the 9 and 10th strings so not having to skip the 9th string to rake across with the thumb to get the fat chords.
And of course i do not use the standard pedal set up and never did.There was no standard when i started except for the c6th neck maybe.
I didn't use the standard pedal set up that was used at the time either.
This forum has been a great help for the new comers.
Now to make it more easy,do as Tom suggested.Don't take up steel.
Learn fiddle and you don't have all those strings to fool with and buy.
BTW.I started on piano and leaned to read music but what became more useful later was knowing music theory.Once learned you can figure out how to make any chord.
But playing fiddle after steel can be ruff as i can't break the habit of thinking in chords. |
|
|
|
