"Looking" For Tone In The Wrong Places?

[Jim Sliff]

Fred - I understand your feelings, and of course I see where the terms "sham" and "liar" can be seen as insults - but they are also objective terms for fakery, fabrication, untruthfulness...andI don't know how using those words would make the point and not also be "insults" in the eyes of some. Heck, (and I know this does NOT apply to you, Fred) it's common here for any comment in disagreement with a "big name" player to be considered an insult, simply because a "big name" *surely* must be right - and garners more "respect" (in quotes as it's a REALLY subjective term in this context) that a simple "local player".

So I am not offended by your comments and hopefully you understand I was dealing with the facts; Reece ends up entangled in it because he was the one presenting said facts without any evidence (perhaps - and this is only one possible idea) - thinking his HOF and player status somehow absolves him from the burden of proof that is a part of any statement presented as fact.

It doesn't matter WHO you are - if a statement is made that "extensive scientific" (a factual descriptive phrase when used properly) testing, studies or other "proof" exists, and you are presenting said statement in the affirmative (i.e. you start the subject, and are not refuting someone else's factual claim claim) you better be able to produce it.

Making a point and claiming the existence of evidence to back it up without being able to produce it is the kind of thing that clogs our court system with something called "frivolous" lawsuits - that are dismissed immediately, as the "affirmative" party has to provide evidence or there is no case.

Reece's playing ability and HOF membership do not constitute "proof" of scientific testing. The "personal standing" items have no bearing on facts, and an 18-year old with an IQ of 90 could say "he has no evidence" and the whole thing would be over.

Folks need to stop judging the content of posts (or basing "credibility") on playing ability or awards. They are totally irrelevant.

Reece made factual statements and was unable to provide a shred of evidence to prove them (or even confirm the existence of proof).

We're all subject to the same burden of proof when initially making a factual claim. No one is excepted simply because of "status".

[b0b]

Okay Donny, since you implied something quite different from my intent in asking those questions, I'll answer them myself.

How many of us have been "impressed" by the tone of a pedal steel on a recording, with no clue as to what brand of guitar was being played or even who the player was?

I have often been impressed by the tone of steel guitars on record, without knowing anything about the guitar or the player.

Would it surprise you if you learned that all of those "impressive" tones came from 5 specific brands?

No. I am impressed by certain tonal qualities, and I expect that some very popular top-notch guitars have those qualities.

What, if anything, would that tell you about those brands of guitars?

That they are used by professionals who share my taste in tone.

Now, there's nothing in my questions or responses to indicate that my preferred tone could or couldn't be made on "brand X". In fact, I've always been able to get a tone that I really like out of any guitar that I've owned.

You don't see a lot of Sierra or Williams guitars in Nashville. So what? That doesn't mean that they're not capable of producing "impressive" tones. It means that the people who are making records in Nashville aren't using them - nothing more, nothing less. The reasons for their choices vary, and some of those reasons are unrelated to tone, for example: "I like the way my old guitar feels." (Lloyd) "My Dad built it just the way I wanted it." (Paul)

Most pedal steels sound very, very good. That's a simple fact, in my mind. If there's a cluster of brands creating impressive sounds on records, it may have little to do with the "inherent tone" of those brands.

Donny, you're tilting at windmills. Chill.

[Brint Hannay]

With regard to the question of "scientific evidence", perhaps it would be helpful to quote here from the Wikipedia article on "Scientific Method":
(link to full article below)

Introduction to the article:

Scientific method refers to a body of techniques for investigating phenomena, acquiring new knowledge, or correcting and integrating previous knowledge. To be termed scientific, a method of inquiry must be based on gathering observable, empirical and measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning.[1] A scientific method consists of the collection of data through observation and experimentation, and the formulation and testing of hypotheses.[2] One of the first to clearly outline the specifics of a scientific method was John Stuart Mill.[3][4]

Although procedures vary from one field of inquiry to another, identifiable features distinguish scientific inquiry from other methodologies of knowledge. Scientific researchers propose hypotheses as explanations of phenomena, and design experimental studies to test these hypotheses. These steps must be repeatable in order to dependably predict any future results. Theories that encompass wider domains of inquiry may bind many hypotheses together in a coherent structure. This in turn may help form new hypotheses or place groups of hypotheses into context.

Among other facets shared by the various fields of inquiry is the conviction that the process be objective to reduce biased interpretations of the results. Another basic expectation is to document, archive and share all data and methodology so they are available for careful scrutiny by other scientists, thereby allowing other researchers the opportunity to verify results by attempting to reproduce them. This practice, called full disclosure, also allows statistical measures of the reliability of these data to be established.

(emphasis added)

And this, from the section titled "Experiments":

Scientists assume an attitude of openness and accountability on the part of those conducting an experiment. Detailed record keeping is essential, to aid in recording and reporting on the experimental results, and providing evidence of the effectiveness and integrity of the procedure. They will also assist in reproducing the experimental results.

By this standard alone, the tests done at MSA in the past cannot now be cited as "scientific" evidence, because Reece has stated in past threads, in response to inquiries, that any documentation that may have existed of the data and methodology has long ago been lost or discarded.

Full article:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method

[b0b]

The closest thing we have to scientific evidence is Ed Packard's measurements. You can see the frequency response curves of a variety of steel guitars at his Photobucket site, towards the bottom of the page:
http://s75.photobucket.com/albums/i287/edpackard

[Georg Sørtun]

http://s75.photobucket.com/albums/i287/edpackard

Limited, but informative. For the few PSG brands/models I know something about, the timed responses was more or less as expected. As I read those curves the differences between brands/models are too clear to be ignored.
Most amps used for PSGs will disguise most of those differences though, simply because most amps/speakers lack the frequency range and neutrality.

[Fred Shannon]

And the other evaluation of steel guitars with reference to tone was pretty unscientific unless you count a blindfold as a scientific acoutrement. I was one of the many participants in the MSA tests Reece has made reference to. I'm pretty sure there were 4 guitars in the room and you could bring your own in. This happened in the mid 70's so memories may not be too functional. I know there was a ZB, Emmons, Sho-bud, and MSA there. All relatively new guitars especially the Emmons and Sho-Bud. Either Jerry (Reece's brother) or maybe Reece himself told me they had swapped MSA guitars for the Sho-Bud and Emmons I believe. These horns were set up for a long length of time and anyone who came in could make the test. The day I was there, I was travelling with Richie Dell, and Billy Braddy was in the shop area. Julian Tharpe, my instructor was also in attendance. We all gave it a try. I think, not certain, Billy id'd two of the five (my little shobud was set up) the first time through, but got none of them right the second time. The only one Julian id'd was my little ShoBud the first time and missed them all the second. Richie Dell, the most vocal of the bunch, like I, didn't get a single one right. You can't say there were 4 'expert' steelers in the group because I happened to be there, but the other 3 were just pretty damned fair players and knew tone as well as anyone. I would like for that test to be made available once again and all these naysayers tackle the test. I bet I know what the results would be. Reece and co made these tests because of the rap MSA was taking about being 'dark and muddy' tonewise. It wasn't so then and it's not so now. all my subjective opinion however. bye bye


phred

[Joe Miraglia]

Never mind who's the #1 steel player,or has the best tone,but who's the #1 Scientist on the forum! Joe

[Dave Mudgett]

The closest thing we have to scientific evidence is Ed Packard's measurements.

Nowhere did anybody arguing against a fixed, inherent tone say that there were no differences between the frequency response curves of different guitars. That is one kind of science, but not the only one relevant to perception of tone by human beings, which is the subject here. I think physical measurements can be very useful, but in the end, I don't really care what a spectrometer thinks about the "tone" of my guitars - they are made to be listened to by people, not instrumentation.

There is more than one kind of science - my primary scientific training is in the hard physical sciences, but no scientist should be oblivious to other approaches. There is a big difference between laboratory experimental science, where one tries to control all the variables in a conscious way to try to directly infer cause and effect, and clinical science, where one looks at things as they occur naturally and make less direct inferences.

There are arguments in favor of each approach, and scientists of each type are often highly critical of the other. Read this quote from Carl Jung - a brilliant social scientist and strong influence on clinical psychology - about experimental psychology:

Anyone who wants to know the human psyche will learn next to nothing from experimental psychology. He would be better advised to abandon exact science, put away his scholar's gown, bid farewell to his study, and wander with human heart throught the world. There in the horrors of prisons, lunatic asylums and hospitals, in drab suburban pubs, in brothels and gambling-hells, in the salons of the elegant, the Stock Exchanges, socialist meetings, churches, revivalist gatherings and ecstatic sects, through love and hate, through the experience of passion in every form in his own body, he would reap richer stores of knowledge than text-books a foot thick could give him, and he will know how to doctor the sick with a real knowledge of the human soul. -- Carl Jung

It is not hard to find criticisms in the other direction - and this goes on in any social science - the general theme is "My science is better than your science." These kinds of arguments are best left to the philosophy of science.

IMO, there are a number of practical problems with using either approach exclusively. One of the biggest problems with laboratory experimental science are so-called "observer effects", where the result is affected by the mere process of observation. This is even an issue in physics - the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle - but there are many more difficult and subtle issues when dealing with people. Things like the Placebo Effect, the Hawthorne Effect, and Reflexivity are real land mines in interpreting experiments on people. On the other hand, if the variables are not controlled, it is harder to know what caused what - there can be multiple variables that correlate purely randomly, through common causation from a completely different variable, and many other issues. I prefer to have knowledge from many angles, not just one.

Personally, I have done double-blind listening tests of 6-string guitars and amps, but not steel guitars. We were not worried about hard laboratory science protocols of recording results - good Lord, it's a bunch of guys sitting around with their backs turned listening to guitars and amps that someone else is playing, and noting the results. We weren't looking to publish this as a journal article, and anybody involved could conclude whatever they wanted to, but we did randomized switching and repeated results many times. I think we were surprised how poorly we could identify, for example, different types of Telecasters or Stratocasters, or different amps of similar general type.

I already said we weren't trying to publish a journal article. But do I think the results were reasonable clinical tests? Yes. It is my sense that the same is true for Reece's tests. It is no problem if you don't agree, but the language has gotten far too strong.

I think we should tone down the rhetoric here. As I mentioned earlier, the kicker is that no amount of "scientific experiment" can ever prove Reece's conjecture - it's logically impossible. One can only prove something if it turns out to be incorrect and some people can perceive inherent tone. Reece may feel that his trials are reasonable clinical evidence. You don't have to believe it, but it's easy enough to just say that and not get strident about this.

Our common bond here is as musicians, not scientists. Science of various types can be a useful tool to understand what we do musically. But as far as I'm concerned, the ultimate goal is musical understanding, not scientific pedantry and rigor.

My opinions, as usual.

[Wayne Franco]

I believe you are absolutely wrong. Reece is an AMAZING teacher who would only post if he thought the subject would provoke positive stimulus. But if you think as stated in you last post Reece would take advantage of his HOF status or any other status he may enjoy in the steel guitar world I sincerly believe you are incorrect. If you are comparing what has been said aghnist maybe a scientific study on Cancer or anything funded with a lot of money I think you're comparing apples to oranges here. Haven't heard of any studies like that specifically aimed at steel guitar.To be frank I do enjoy many of your posts. They are informative and I think knowledgable. But when players like Paul Franklin remark "your posts wear me out" and of course your predictable ongoing personal problem with Mr Anderson I feel it hurts every one who really does enjoy what these players have to say. Maybe if you don't like what someone posts don't read it and don't respond. It may prevent a lot of heartburn for you and a lot more positive enviroment here on the forum.

[Brint Hannay]

Even if accepted as "clinical" evidence (I mean nothing pejorative by putting quotes around that), my point is that the accounts of the MSA tests are, unfortunately, just more anecdotal evidence, because, as far as anyone has heard so far, no complete record of what transpired exists.

I don't doubt the accuracy of what Phred remembers. And there's a good deal of anecdotal evidence here and there (in this thread and elsewhere) that tends to support the hypothesis that blind identification of tones is unusual at best. Roger Rettig posted an account a while back of himself and Albert Lee listening to the recordings from a past session they both had played on in which Albert had used both his Telecaster and his Les Paul, and Albert himself couldn't tell which track was which guitar.

I just think that, both as a result of not having actual records and as a result of having manipulated variables other than just changing the guitars in the MSA tests, Reece's anecdotal evidence has no higher degree of reliability than anyone else's.

JMHO

[b0b]

I'm not getting much out of this topic. Is anyone else?

[Doug Beaumier]

I'm not getting much out of this topic. Is anyone else?

Nope, same old circular tone argument and some baiting too... say good night.

[Ward Skinner]

The first paragraph of the initial post reads:

"Over the years, steel guitar sound/tone comparisons have provided the probable conclusion that it’s unlikely anyone can consistently identify an inherent tone or specific guitars when they can’t see them being played. If this is indeed true (and I believe it is) the question then becomes……what is it that causes our senses to arrive at false conclusions.

Reece in the 3rd paragraph says: "When considering the basic human senses and the sound/tone comparisons made in the past, the only logical sense left to consider is…… the ”eyes”. "

I believe he is talking about the psychology of human perception (of tone), and concluding that the eyes play an important role in that perception. Not a machine, a human.

I posted 1 thing in this topic on page 4, it bears worth reading again. It reads in part:

"An example of the classic blind taste test, Coke vs Pepsi:

*Is there anything left to say about the difference between Coke and Pepsi? As they continue to bludgeon each other for market share, their partisan supporters are split 50/50 in favor of one or another. In blind taste tests, it works out that way just about every time.

But some compelling research from Baylor College of Medicine highlights their differences in a novel way. Using functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging (fMRI) technology to monitor brain activity, researchers conducted a blind taste test among 67 subjects and sure enough, preference was split down the middle. Brain scans showed that the something called the ventrolateral prefrontal cortex lights up when either brand was consumed. Since that part of the brain responds to rewards, and people were being asked to drink sugar water, no surprises there.
 But when researchers then told people which cola they were drinking as they quaffed it, things got more interesting. In those “branded” taste tests, while still hooked up to the fMRI, Coke was preferred by 75% to 25%. Why? Yes Virginia, there is such as thing as brand imagery. Turns out that when people knew they were drinking Coke, things like the "dorsolateral prefrontal cortex" and the hippocampus both got excited. So Coke is more likely to light up the brain parts related to things like memory and cognitive control. In most cases Pepsi did not have the same effect.
There are a few conclusions we can draw from this. Start by thinking about the differences between the two brands in the public’s eye. Ask people about Coke imagery and they’re likely to come up with Mean Joe Greene, Polar Bears, and a slew of other iconic imagery. Ask people about Pepsi, and the imagery isn’t quite as deeply rooted – they might associate Pepsi with a hot celebrity or with “young generation” appeal, but they probably don’t link it to the kind of emotional American icons Coke has successfully linked to.*

And another:

*Coke versus Pepsi: It's all in the head

The preference for Coke versus Pepsi is not only a matter for the tongue to decide, Samuel McClure and his colleagues have found. Brain scans of people tasting the soft drinks reveal that knowing which drink they're tasting affects their preference and activates memory-related brain regions that recall cultural influences. Thus, say the researchers, they have shown neurologically how a culturally based brand image influences a behavioral choice.
These choices are affected by perception, wrote the researchers, because "there are visual images and marketing messages that have insinuated themselves into the nervous systems of humans that consume the drinks."*"

A few posts later, Reece, in response to the above post, said:

"Ward S…..Very informative post. It’s always refreshing to see those who do their research. As I said earlier, there is a LOT of scientific information available even on the internet that supports the power of visual perception, and whether we are speaking of soft drinks, steel guitar or anything else, it still applies to perceptions gleaned for each individual. Very extensive scientific research supports the premise that inherent tone relative to any brand of steel guitar does not exist."

Later on Page 10, Jim Sliff quoted the last line of the paragraph above from Reece and said:

Reece Anderson:
Quote:
Very extensive scientific research supports the premise that inherent tone relative to any brand of steel guitar does not exist.


Then why have you been unable to produce, in any of the dozens of threads you've either started or joined on the subject, a single example of said research?

Your statement also demonstrates the "Fog" you keep laying out, with the "unidentifiable tone" being brand related one time and model-related another.

If there is verifiable, specific evidence I'd love to read it I don't mind being wrong about something when proof is provided. But all we've seen are statements of fact with no backup data.
_________________

Taken in context, one can see Reece seems to be referring to my post with the evidence of increased brain activity when the brand was known.

[Tracy Sheehan]

Maybe this will help settle it.If i had a Strad violin which i don't,i bet any one i could make it sound as bad as i do on my violin/fiddle.

[Georg Sørtun]

I'm not getting much out of this topic. Is anyone else?

Sure; quite a bit about how various people use their senses and equipment - somewhat interesting, and tiny bits here and there about various PSGs' "tone" - which is interesting.

Apart from that ...

[Brint Hannay]

I'm not getting much out of this topic. Is anyone else?

Sure, having perused the entire thread, and cogitated about all that's been said by all parties, weighing and synthesizing the disparate streams of intellection whose confluence has given rise to such turbulence, everything points to one inescapable conclusion:
Black guitars sound better!

[Bobbe Seymour]

It's teaching me a lot about human nature!

I'm never to old to learn, (I hope)

Bobbe

[Twayn Williams]

Personally, I have done double-blind listening tests of 6-string guitars and amps, but not steel guitars. We were not worried about hard laboratory science protocols of recording results - good Lord, it's a bunch of guys sitting around with their backs turned listening to guitars and amps that someone else is playing, and noting the results. We weren't looking to publish this as a journal article, and anybody involved could conclude whatever they wanted to, but we did randomized switching and repeated results many times. I think we were surprised how poorly we could identify, for example, different types of Telecasters or Stratocasters, or different amps of similar general type.

A general observation triggered by the above quote.

The actual proof of the pudding is NOT in whether you can tell this guitar from that guitar when someone else is playing them, but when YOU are playing them. I don't think these "double-blind" tests really do any good. Too crude when dealing with the subtleties we're talking about. They might be fun, but not really very important. It's like saying that if the audience can't tell the difference in tone then it shouldn't matter to the player, which is, of course, complete nonsense.

b0b, now I've had my say you can lock the thread

[Geoff Cline]

I'm not getting much out of this topic. Is anyone else?

Ah.....no. To paraphrase Abraham Lincoln, this thread shows people's ability to compress the most words into the smallest idea. And to lose sight of civility and mutual respect in the process.

But steel players do seem to have a healthy dose of spunk, ornery and stubborn in 'em.

[Dave Mudgett]

W. Franco - I don't believe that the Paul Franklin remark you mentioned was aimed at Jim Sliff. But I do largely concur with your overall point.

b0b, I agree that this topic is contentious. But I honestly have to wonder aloud that if the topic of whether a player's sound is more influenced by his or her skill vs. the inherent tone of the instrument is not appropriate to a forum like this, what are we reduced to discussing? "Hey, who's playing with {insert name of famous star}?" or in-all-seriousness discussions of "What's the BEST {insert steel, amp, bar, volume pedal, player, picks, strings, or whatever}?"

The actual proof of the pudding is NOT in whether you can tell this guitar from that guitar when someone else is playing them, but when YOU are playing them.

But that criterion DOES matter from the audience's point of view. Who is a live or recording musician playing for? I guess that depends on one's point of view - but I also argued earlier that point of view is everything. We all have different points of view, and that POV may vary depending on what is in our focus at the time.

Further - I NEVER said the instrument doesn't matter to the player. I also stated that even if people couldn't distinguish between guitars, that I, myself, care and am (basically) an equipment junkie. But I think that it's important to remember that even though myriad equipment details may matter - even intensely - to each of us as players, I still agree that development of skill in expressing ourselves on the instrument far outweighs equipment choice, which I think has been one of Reece's main points throughout. I have to wonder if that point has fallen on deaf ears.

[Donny Hinson]

Sorry Bob, I can't let you get off that easy!

You said:

Would it surprise you if you learned that all of those "impressive" tones came from 5 specific brands?

No. I am impressed by certain tonal qualities, and I expect that some very popular top-notch guitars have those qualities.

And then:

Most pedal steels sound very, very good. That's a simple fact, in my mind. If there's a cluster of brands creating impressive sounds on records, it may have little to do with the "inherent tone" of those brands.

If I'm tilting, it's because you're sending a mixed message. Elsewise, how'd we go from only "all those impressive tones came from 5 specific brands" to "Most pedal steels sound very, very good"?


I figure there's at least 30 brands out there being made right now. I also figure that "most" would mean at least 20 of them sound (as you said) "very, very good".

So...then it seems like of all the ones that sound "very, very good" (20?), only 5 have an "impressive tone"?

Recordings are affected by the player's amp, the mike/camera used, the digital conversion, the (your) playback soundcard, and your computer speakers. Lastly, a very few of us think the player has a part in that equation, too!

I just find it remarkable that people can rule out all those other things between the guitar and listener (including the player), and come to the unalterable conclusion that it's only the guitar that's responsible for the sound (tone) that pleases them.

Sharp ears, indeed!

Peace.

[Brint Hannay]

I just find it remarkable that people can rule out all those other things between the guitar and listener (including the player), and come to the unalterable conclusion that it's only the guitar that's responsible for the sound (tone) that pleases them.

Donny, who are those people? I'll venture to say that not a single person who's posted here--heck, not a single person anywhere--fits that description.

[Twayn Williams]

The actual proof of the pudding is NOT in whether you can tell this guitar from that guitar when someone else is playing them, but when YOU are playing them.

But that criterion DOES matter from the audience's point of view. Who is a live or recording musician playing for? I guess that depends on one's point of view - but I also argued earlier that point of view is everything. We all have different points of view, and that POV may vary depending on what is in our focus at the time.

As a player I've spend ungodly amounts of money and time chasing tone. I agonize over the slightest tweak of a knob and what it does to my tone. I obsess about buffers and cables, strings and picks, amps and speakers.

Then I go listen to someone who's using dirt cheap equipment, Boss pedals and no-name cables and I might think, man, that person has some great tone! However, if I play their rig, I will often very quickly become disgusted at the tone -- and it's not because of my playing! My tonal requirements as a player are DIFFERENT from my tonal requirements as a listener.

As a listener, I might be unable to pick out the difference between one strat and another, but if I play 'em I will be able to! I'm not as sensitive with PSG but I am with a lap steels.

Who do you tweak your tone for, yourself or the listener? I think we all tweak it for ourselves. Of course, if we as players are pleased with our tone we are more likely to play better, which the audience is more likely to pick up on.

[Dave Mudgett]

Who do you tweak your tone for, yourself or the listener? I think we all tweak it for ourselves.

Sometimes that is reasonable. But are you really so completely sure that you, and only you, know anything about what works tonally that you should always ignore other peoples' input? While I know what I like, I sometimes consider other peoples' opinions.

A player's "audience" is not necessarily just the people who come to listen in a club or whatever - although I don't think their opinion is completely irrelevant. Sometimes I bring an instrument or rig that a teacher, band leader, producer, musical collaborator, or someone else who thinks it's the right sound for the work we're doing together. Should I assume they're just trying to micromanage me? Sometimes I ask a bandmate to bring a particular instrument or other piece of equipment to achieve a particular sound I think will work with something we're doing. Should they tell me to buzz off?

Who is to say that I am the only one who knows anything about what I should sound like in a particular situation? What is my purpose in playing - is it purely for my own self-amusement, or do I play for and in concert with other people?

As I said before, I think the answers to these questions depend on one's point of view. Consider that you may be projecting quite a bit when you say, "we all tweak it for ourselves." I believe that if I always took this approach to feedback, there are quite a number of things in a lot of areas (not just music) that I never would have learned.

That is my opinion, anyway.

[Reece Anderson]

I want to thank all of you who have contacted me, both in support of my position, and who asked that I continue to participate on the forum. Those who know me are aware I’m no stranger to false accusations, and nothing will deter me from pursuing the truth.

I will not engage in a barrage of further comments, to do so only invites the possibility of continued negative discussion which leads to undignified comment, name calling and innuendo’s, all of which delays and deflects the responsibility of the naysayers to prove that which they maintain is true, not to mention it's inappropriate and degrading to the reputation of the forum itself.

I do however agree it’s time to move forward, and there’s no time like the present to quit talking and spotlight the naysayers to prove their position, not only as I have done, but will do. I have already offered to travel half way across the country, but my offer was declined.

Also I see where Fred Shannon has attested to the fact that evaluations were conducted. Concerning the lack of documentation for those evaluations, I have to wonder how many others have specific records of 35 years ago which at the time did not appear necessary. As many of you know, we were very attentive in keeping records about our guitars, but the need to keep accurate records on evaluations appeared less important. Even if I had records today, it would simply be said they were not true. Thank you Fred, it’s always refreshing to see you and others who are not afraid of the truth, or that of becoming targeted.

This matter is not about me, and never was, it’s about steel guitar. All that’s been said is inconsequential when compared to the only thing that truly matters, and that is the truth, which poses a simple question……can anyone achieve that which I have never seen? If they can that’s fine with me and I’ll congratulate them, for as I have repeatedly said, I have no dog in this hunt, I’ve only shared my experience over the decades. I of course have my reasons as to why I believe as I do, as would anyone else who had been in my position.

I rest my case, now it’s up to the naysayers to prove their position. Typing on a keyboard is easy, proving a position is yet another matter, as in not having the visual advantage of seeing the guitars being evaluated.

Any post in which someone resorts to undignified manner, ask the question as to why they feel the need to resort to such things, especially if they truly believe what they say? Were I to be a naysayer and truly believed in what I was saying, I would not waste my time on a computer keyboard, I would be focused on accepting the challenge of proof which would be far more productive than displaying a John Wayne poster advertising cigarettes, as was displayed on this thread. If the challenge is refused, I will have the answer I anticipated.

I believe this subject to be important to steel players everywhere and it’s time for the naysayers to accept responsibility of proving their counter beliefs as I have done my beliefs........just as importantly, I believe the steel guitar community deserves to know the truth….. whatever it may be.

Actions speak louder than words so now I’ll wait and see how long it takes for someone to come forward with only four words…….."I’ll accept the challenge"……. and be willing to prove it.