Chords and build

[ed packard]

A general question on chords:

What chord types are in your arsenal?
Did chords determine your coped/setup?
What was/is your source of chord information?

What is your preferred type of music = Standards, Country, Jazz, other?

To what extent should chords influence PSG build?

Edp

[Bent]

What chord types are in your arsenal?
-Mostly the majors and related minors. Passing chords like 7th, dim and aug are also useful(if I only could find them!)
Did chords determine your coped/setup?
-To some extent, yes.
What was/is your source of chord information?
-Chord charts like Newman's for instance. A good basic chord locator has always been the 6 string guitar neck, for me.

What is your preferred type of music = Standards, Country, Jazz, other?
Country, Standards, Jazz, in that order. One of my most preferred music types are Gospel and old Hymns as well

To what extent should chords influence PSG build?
- Not sure if I understand but chords are of course a very important part of the steel guitar sound. So you keep this in mind when considering the build as a whole.

[LushPyle]

I have given this question some thought and I find it somewhat difficult to answer because of the way I have come to think about music in general and my copedant specifically.
If you think of chords “vertically” or as stacks of various intervals that you then name with rules learned from “Jazz” theory it is useful information to have. I feel that the most useful way to think of music is horizontally or simply as moving voices.
All major and minor chords are simply stacks of major and minor thirds. Just about any tuning accommodates this.
What chords are in my arsenal? I can’t think of any that aren’t.
My copedant is influenced more by the way the individual voices move from one chord to another. I play extended E9 with 5/5 and every single new change to my copedant I have ever made was driven by horizontal thinking and not a desire to find new ways to play augmented or diminished or any specific vertical stack of notes. Don’t get me wrong – that ability needs to be part of any setup. It’s just that it’s already part of any traditional tuning being used including E9, C6, and universal tunings. C6 may be more useful to one whose focus is jazz or standards of course.
My source of chord information is training in jazz theory and classical theory. While I don’t play classical or “art” music I find personally that classical theory makes a great deal more sense than jazz theory as it accommodates both vertical and horizontal analysis.
I think that I became interested in Country music because of the way the steel guitar sounds and while I play country I also play rock and pop genres as well. I am fortunate to be involved with a band that plays a wide variety of genres and lets me play (and overplay) them all.
The last question is the hardest to answer as I am not sure where you want to take this. From your previous posts I might infer that you are thinking in terms of an instrument that does not have the mechanical limitations of current designs regarding the amount an individual string can be raised or lowered for example. Maybe I am reading way too much into your question and if so please forgive me. I make this leap because the question ” To what extent should chords influence PSG build?” seems a lot like asking “to what extent should wheels influence the design of a car?”.
I have to say Ed, that I am a huge fan of your posts both here and on the Steel Guitar Forum. Your work in singularly rare in that it represents a scientific approach to issues of steel guitar construction and concepts that have been important to me for a long time. In 1971 when I was in college I attempted a project that involved a purely synthesized pedal steel guitar with no traditional mechanics involved. Frankly I gave it up after a month or so since I found it to be way beyond my technical and scientific abilities. I also built a prototype for a “linear motion” changer mechanism but never completed the actual guitar. The implications regarding intonation I only became aware of in a thread on the Forum that you participated in and may recall. In any event we do share some common interests here and I hope you will forgive my ramblings and the smartass nature of my reply. Hey – that’s just the kind of guy I am!

[ed packard]

What prompted the questions with which this thread was opened is that I just finished assigning the P&L changes, and rodding one of my instruments for the M13 tuning structure. M13, in this case being C,E,G,B,D,F,A etc. = the line notes of the staff.

In doing this, it became apparent how much the choice of tuning/setup structure can affect the physical form of the PSG.

First, only a single halftone raise and lower are required to obtain just about any chord desired, and these chords are in such an order as to be easily remembered of derived on the fly. A single raise and lower means a simple changer with only one row of raises and one row of lowers. It also means less tension on the P&Ls assigned. It means shorter bell cranks allowing for the possibility of a thinner lighter body.

Second, although I have done this with a 14 string instrument, the tuning/setup structure will work as well with 10 or more strings.

Third, for those that would like to have less P&Ls but greater chord availability. The musical structure can be/was optimized around the 4 pedals and 5 levers = P1,P2,P3,P4,L<,L^,L>,R<,R>.

The multitude of chords available are based upon using each string as a root to provide 3,4,5,6,& 7 tone chords with adjacent intervals on adjacent strings. For example, in 4 tone chords, 7, M7, m7, and mM7 chords are found for each string as root…b5, #5, can be added to each of these 4 tone chords. Adding a fifth string to the 4 tone group gives 9th chords, each of which may have b9 and #9. this continues thru the 11th, and 13th chords…so lots of chords available.

So…less pulls, less tensions, smaller rods, smaller changer, smaller body, all tend toward
more musical possibilities and less mass…the simplicity pleads for itself.

The strings become the lines of the staff in the M13 case, and they are also the spaces of the staff in the m13 case two frets up = read sheet music/fake books direct to the strings.

This approach will provide a new range of sounds/styles to the PSG world…it is a horse looking for a rider.

The above was implemented on one of my 13 series PSGs (Sierra Session series hardware) with integrated changer and keyless/gearless tuner.

Comments?

Great responses so far from the experimenter/builders.

[richard37066]

Ed -

Since you and I have been exchanging a view or two regarding the ultimate in copedants, then you know what my answer(s) to your questions will be. This may be one of those threads where the members gain greater insight into the overall thinking of others aside from the aspect of building the instrument. An in depth discussion would be quite lengthy thus I'll attempt to be brief - although I know that it won't be.

My musical tastes are quite eclectic. I thoroughly enjoy the standards, country, jazz and, yes, classical. If one were to make a crude attempt to rank those genres according to the complexity of their chordal requirements then the order might well be: - country, standards & classical and, lastly, jazz. Given its' roots, country music tends to be simplistic in nature. The standards are an outgrowth of the big band and show tunes era which spawned melodies having greater complexity and taking advantage of more of the beauty to be found within the vast range of musical composition. Jazz compositions take this approach one step further with an emphasis on extended and unusual chords and their progressions. These are simple and general observations thus I shouldn't have my hide nailed to the wall because of brevity.

We all know that some have attempted to formulate copedants such that all genres could be played within a single, comprehensive copedant hence the "universal" approach. In spite of its' virtues, I find that even the "universal" thinking falls short of what I, personally, would find ideal. To wit: -

On the piano, one can play any chord in any inversion and at multiple points - octaves - upon the keyboard. Would it not be desirable to provide that same availability on the PSG? I broach this subject since everyone should know that, in general, a single inversion of a given chord can be found at only one or two disparate places upon the neck of the instrument - almost regardless of copedant. In an ideal sense, any chord should be accessible at multiple locations. Now, how many locations constitute "multiple" positions? My personal belief is that the minimum number should be three. And not necessarily limited to octave spacings - which might raise the number of locations to more than just three. Sounds simple, right? Not necessarily so.

Given the limitations of virtually all copedants, we are limited to the playing of chord "fragments". That is, two or three notes out of, say, an extended chord having 4, 5, or, even, 6 required notes. Not to completely disparage a given copedant, it should be noted that part of this limitation is imposed by the use of three finger picks. As a result of my classical guitar training, I use four picks. This is only a lesser limitation since the art of "strumming" is still necessary in instances where one desires a full sound. This gives rise to the notion that complex, extended chords should abound virtually anywhere on the neck. Easier said than done. As LushPyle has noted, most chords are nothing more than a stack of major and minor third intervals. Given this, a given chord in the "open" position does not repeat itself at multiple points further up the neck and on the same strings - the dim7th chord an exception. Without a detailed explanation, I can relate that, should one alter the open position chord, then a replication of that same chord elsewhere on the neck may also be altered but in an undesirable manner. This assumes, of course, that the copedant, itself, supports replication of chords over a span of octaves.

For those of us who are greatly enamored with the sound of Bill Evans' "cluster chords" - closely grouped chord extension elements - the veritable can of worms is opened wide.

As you very well know, I have had my head into your CM13 copedant for a couple of months, at least. In spite of its' many virtues - and there are many - I still find it lacking in regards some of my personal "pet" preferences. It would behoove the members to observe and understand the simplistic nature in the raising and lowering of single, but octave notes. It would be an eye-opening experience. True, your copedant does, indeed, provide replication of a given chord at several points upon the fretboard - bravo, kudos and "bless you" - but it requires 14 strings in order to achieve same! Granted, the same approach can be used with 10 and 12 stringed instruments but represent unnacceptable compromises - to my way of thinking and desires. It is as a result of this that I have gone through a ream or two of printer paper while excercising the combinations of raises and lowers in an effort to unearth the extended sounds so dear to my ear - but on 12 strings. Ya really don't want to know of some of the outrageous "pulls" that I've found necessary in order to maintain the replication of a given chord. The members reading this are, no doubt, thinking that we're heading towards a PSG with 88 strings, analogous to a piano. There's merit to that thinking but the practicality of the matter imposes a limitation of 12 or 14 strings - much like your "Beast". The hard fact of the matter is that, as the number of strings increases and tuned in a chromatic fashion, the greater the reach of the "grips" that one must use in order to access given, extended chords. The major question that one must, personally, answer is to what extent must one go in order to satisfy their own requirements as regards chords and their inversions and availability.

Can the typical "country" sounds be attained within an extended copedant? Within limitations, yes. Zane King has a copedant which embraces "modern" sounds and "country" sounds, alike. BUT - it is still a very limited compromise. Some have even resorted to a "lever lock" in order to access a second tuning. This approach should NOT be out of the question for those bullding PSG's. It's been proven to be a welcome addition to the single-necked instrument or, for that matter, on one neck of, say, a D10.

Have I reached my personal goal? Close, but no cigar. Yet. The quest goes on and I'm mindful of the fact that I must make the painful decision to accept a compromise in order to have an instrument upon which I can attempt to play pretty music - or cave in to a 14 stringed instrument. One alternative seems to be quite ludicrous - a triple 14 with three different copedants! Aaaaarrrgggghh!

I jest, guys, so don't let the neurons go nuts over that last statement.

Richard

[ed packard]

Ahoy Richard...glad to see that you are "up and in the Buggy" to mix metaphors.

Right on...two seven tone two octave chords like CM13 requires "MORE" than 14 strings as I use them. I like to have the roots and fifth on the fatest strings...in case the bass player does not make it back from the bar.

It is possible however to get MOST of the four string/tone chords at two octaves on the same fret...check out the G starting on sting 13 and it's upper octave brother starting on string 6.

Because any string can be used as a root to give a 13 series chord, then a 13 type CXXX chord can be found on other frets...activating changes can make it into M13,m13,13, mM13 at any location...so C something can be found on each string on some fret and can be changed into C something else.

There is also no reason except convenience that string 8 as a C needs to be the starting point for the tuning...any note may be placed on any open string and used as the starting point for the 13 series. I chose string 8, and C as home position because E9 uses string 8, and folks can think in C rather easily...truth be known, I use it in BbM13 = tuned down a full tone = easier on 0.011 gauge strings.


Hasta
Edp

[ed packard]

To address the build aspect as affected by changer complexity as a function of coped/setup complexity...here is a shot of the changer end with the CM13EX1 changes installed. The bell cranks can be shortened, the tone rods made thinner, the body made thinner (shorter aprons)...worth considering?



The mechanics would only be of advantage if the coped/setup were musically in demand (economics of scale). To be in demand, setup must meet the musical needs as seen by the studio players and the producers. Few producers want the risk of being pioneers (they are the ones with the arrows in their backs). That being the case, PSG studio players have no motivation to risk trying a new setup with a new sound.

Some have brought up questions about the amount, type, and location of chords on/in the CM13 series. We will show the location of C four tone chords using four forms of the 13 series (M13, 13, m13, and mM13) to give some insight...you judge.

Here is the CM13 setup arranged to show the interval progression vs. activated changes.



Here is the CM13 setup arranged to show the usage of the common E9 P&Ls to activate the changes.



First neck chart = neck location of the Cxx four tone chords for M13.



Second neck chart = neck location of the Cxx four tone chords for 13.



Third chart = neck location of the Cxx four tone chords for m13.



Fourth chart = neck location of the Cxx four tone chords for mM13.



Compare these to what you have on the E9 C6 E9/B6 etc. units.

[Georg]

For me availability of chords all over the neck on a PSG don't play a major role - the way I can make chord-changes sound do. My way of thinking is that the PSG is just one of many instruments available, so if the melodic qualities of a reasonably well-equipped PSG doesn't cut it, I play, or let someone else play, another instrument that does. The best is often to combine instruments to make music, which is what an orchestra or band is all about.

As a kid I learned to play various brass-instruments, and the way we can weave single-note instruments in and out to collectively make music has always appealed to me - despite the fact that I put the horns on the shelf for good more than 40 years ago.

I use/need the large changes on a PSG - see chart - in order to weave single notes together in ways that "legitimate" playing a PSG, even if it means losing or complicating some chord-notes/positions

...so a +/- 1 half-note set-up won't do much of anything for me.

I rather find more ways to "split" the upper and lower octaves so I can easier weave notes in one octave into and out of the other, which means fewer full chords, more mechanics and weight, but to me the potential for more interesting music.

[ed packard]

Hi Georg,

A lot of "speed picking" seems to be based upon the styles used by horn players = single note at a time instruments. Scale running and the likes is best done on a "non change activated basis" because as the changes are added to a P or L the ability to instantly make the changes decreases hence so does speed. An electronic changer would remove this limitation.

The PSG, as is allows combining chord solos and single note techniques to a degree. The 13th series as I have presented it allows full tone changes as each string can be raised AND lowered a halftone. On my first posting on the subject, I used two full tone changes, but decided to eliminate them at least for the purpose of explaning the 13th approach.

It is interesting to see the responses on both forums in which different folk want different things for a music standpoint.

Keep the pot boiling Georg.

Edp

[Georg]

Hi Ed,

I am definitely not a speed picker - at least not now

My style of playing often involves playing quick-muted melody licks in the upper register - string 1 to 6 on EM/E9 - while playing sustained and changing notes in the lower register ... or the other way round. Sustaining changing notes means single-strings with bar movement and p/l changes, while picking melody licks means sometimes contradicting bar movements (or slanting) and changes. No problem when overdubbing, but doing it live...

So if you can come up with a set-up that makes it easier to play duo/trio with myself like described above, I would be most grateful