New version of the B6

Jim Sliff · From: Lawndale California, USA

If this looks right you can ignore all the posts (except Ed's "E" translation) below..I copied-and-pasted my "random guessing" method of getting the thing to work. So if everything lines up, it's the right copedent:

Billy Carr · From: Seminary, Mississippi, USA (deceased)

Just curious here, is this the same or similiar to the B6 you get when the E's are lowered on a S-12U. I'm not real familiar with Pete's set up but would like to know. On his 8 string Fender is the B6 the same but with different string groups or voicings. Even though his tone is not what I look for, it's still interesting to watch him play on YouTube. I like the way he keeps you wondering where he's going next when he takes a ride on something. Very interesting player. I like his style.

Jim Sliff · From: Lawndale California, USA

It's different than the E9/B6...his copedent is posted on the forum (hit the "links" section at the top of this page)and is what I use on my 400, and several other guys use slight variations on it on their Fenders. It takes a different thought process than E9, but I find it much ore intuitive and easier to play. Some people seem to think it requires a lot of sliding around, but surprisingly in Pete's playing there's a lot less bar movement than you think - and when you play with a 1-pound, 1 1/4 bar, movement has to be pretty darned compact!

Funny how thoughts differ - it was his tone that first knocked me out, and one of the reasons I'm so happy with the GFI Ultra is that it plays tonally alot like a Fender - different picking position significantly affect the sound, and it has a Fendery-tone to start with.

Jim Sliff · From: Lawndale California, USA

OK, time to try the post I started with -

I just finished (except for the splits, which aren't really part of Sneaky's copedent but might be handy) setting this up on my GFI Ultra. I was beating my head against the wall with E9, and decided to se if there was a way to adapt the B6 copedent I'm already familiar with in a 9+2 setup to a pretty standard 3+4.

Ed Bierly was the genius behind the copedent...he figured out ho to get almost all the changes that are used often in the most convenient place. The only sacrifices are the 9th pedal changes, which Sneaky never used at all (they were place holders for his foot) and the RK, which I don't recall him using much if at all (although I like it and may add it via a vert lever later).

Paul Redmond added one change and was the technical resource, as far as the construction - very patient with someone who has a checkered...heck, a horrendous...history of working on rodded guitars. And GFI worked out the splits - I think Bob was kind of intrigued by the whole idea.

The end result (so far) is a guitar that was playable the minute I sat down, with all the familiar stuff but easier to reach, plus an extended range. Weirdly, it sounds even more Fendery in this copedent...it gets the early-70's thick tone Sneaky had when he started experimenting with pickup changes.

I'm not giving up my precious 400, which is still my absolute favorite...but the Ultra might end up seeing more live action, and it's just a kick to play!

STILL can't get the tab command to work!!!

I'lll try again in a while.

[This message was edited by Jim Sliff on 19 November 2006 at 07:33 AM.]

ebb · From: nj

here it is translated to the familiar e tuning



 	p1	p2	p3	lkl	lkr	rkl	rkr	split


g#		a					f#	g


e					d#	f#		f


c#				d				


b	c#		a#					c


g#		a					f#	g


f#								


e								


c#				d				


b	c#							


g#		a

[This message was edited by ebb on 19 November 2006 at 11:00 AM.]

Jim Sliff · From: Lawndale California, USA

Well, at least we're consistent! Ed's won't line up either...

(Well, I see Ed managed to get his working. So I'll try ONE more time as well...) AMAZING! I had to manually guess at where to put things because it looks completely fouled up in the posting window - someone should change the instructions to not that litle detail, and that a lot of manual manipulation is required.

Russ Tkac · Posted 19 Nov 2006 10:26 am

Looks good to me.

[This message was edited by Russ Tkac on 19 November 2006 at 06:36 PM.]

David Doggett · Posted 19 Nov 2006 12:57 pm

If you put the copedant in an Excel spreadsheet, you can put the bracketed tab markers in your post (with no space in between markers), copy the excell spreadsheet, and paste it between the bracketed tab markers. This usually works for me, but you have no control over the space that is put between the columns. If you have too many columns, it makes the page go wider, but I think Pete's copendant will fit with no problems.

[This message was edited by David Doggett on 19 November 2006 at 12:59 PM.]

Jim Sliff · From: Lawndale California, USA

David - tried that as well, and it collapsed.

The weirdest part is that the posted spacing, even when nothing but spaces are used with a monospaced font, have no consistency. Some parts collapse completely - others end up with MORE spaces between them. And this is with Excel, Word, Textedit, or directly into the window.

Earnest Bovine · From: Los Angeles CA USA

Jim, the copedent that you posted about 3 posts back looks fine on my display. What are you using to view it, and does it look like to you?

b0b · From: Cloverdale, CA, USA

Looks fine to me too.

ebb · From: nj

please forgive jim's use of the adjective genius with even my name in the same paragraph let alone the same page. all i did was to leverage split capabilities on modern changers to map sneaky's(the true genius)copedant from essentially an 8 pedal 1 knee to a 3 pedal 4 knee 10 string gfi

Jim Sliff · From: Lawndale California, USA

It looks fine now because if you note by the edit times ANd the notes I made in the edited posts, I went back and manually tweaked and twisted it until it worked...then copied-and-pasted it into the first post.

However, the simple commands given in the help files don't seem to work - at least as written. There HAS to be more to it.

Ed's not giving himself enough credit. He took a 9+2 8 string copedent and managed to squeeze the essentials not only into a 3+4, but put everything where it made sense from a player's standpoint.

And Paul Redmond beat me to the genius phrase many weeks ago when we first started conceptualizing this idea.

FWIW I've been playing it for hours today - it's more fun than I can even describe, and amazingly versatile. It'll do my unworthy impression of Sneaky's playing and much, much more.

[This message was edited by Jim Sliff on 19 November 2006 at 06:55 PM.]

Bobby Lee · From: Cloverdale, California, USA

Why did you name the pedals "A", "B" and "C", Jim?

Bobby Lee · From: Cloverdale, California, USA

I find it a lot easier to understand from the 1st fret, where it's a C6add9:

Jim Sliff · From: Lawndale California, USA

Bobby - I named them A,B and C only to make them easier to recognize for most players. That and the A&B pedals being somewhat similar in use to the E9 A&B made it seem the best way to post it.

FWIW I call them 1, 2 & 3.

If you think of it as 180 degrees from "E" the open tuning makes sense. Sneaky talks in terms of "degrees", which is confusing at first and them starts to make a lot of sense.

Sitting down and playing it, position-wise it's much more closely related to E than C.

Guys with an unused C6 neck might want to try it - it really is quite versatile and very logical to play, plus some of the low changes are real head-turners!

Bobby Lee · From: Cloverdale, California, USA

I understand "A" and "B" match the E9th a 4th lower, but your "C" pedal bears no resemblence to the E9th "C" pedal.

Bobby Lee · From: Cloverdale, California, USA

How many degrees from E9th is Sonny Curtis' copedent?

Pete Burak · From: Portland, OR USA

b0b, There is a guy around here who plays that set up, and he calls it "A6th", which is basically the pedals down postion of E9th, and the A & B pedals are lowers instead of raises.
I tried it, but man it was a brain twister.

KENNY KRUPNICK · From: Columbus, Ohio

b0b, You pretty much have Sonny's copedant listed there.He dosen't have a 3rd pedal.

I believe he lowers both "E's" on the same lever though.

[This message was edited by KENNY KRUPNICK on 21 November 2006 at 07:10 PM.]

Jim Sliff · From: Lawndale California, USA

Bobby - I don't know how it compares and it's completely irrelevant to the subject at hand. You're off-topic.

As far as "C" not matching the E9 "C" - there are 3 pedals in a row. It was A, B, C or 1, 2 3 in my mind. I thought most people would kind of follow the A,B,C and numbering them would be odd on a 3+4 guitar, but then we all know I don't know anything - so it must be wrong.

If it's that big an issue, as so many things seem to be with you lately, call them whatever the heck you want - I really don't give a rat's backside.

I thought some folks might find it interesting to think about...rather than pick apart the friggin' numbering system because they don't comprehend anything outside the norm.

Here's a thought - don't tune your guitar that way. Don't try it. I do not want to put so much pressure on you to understand three letters of the alphabet are sometimes used as a simple sequence, as they are in outlines.

I humbly apologize that the "C" pedal does not do the function required by the semantics police. Send me the ticket so I can pay it.

I'll send you the payment with a fingerpainted drawing of pockets. It's all they allow us here - we can't have anything sharp.

Bobby Lee · From: Cloverdale, California, USA

Jim, when you said that it was "180 degrees from E", Sonny's copedent came to mind. I think of your B6add9 as a fourth below the E9th, because the pedals and changes are basically the same. It's just tuned to a lower root tone. Sonny, with his pedals that lower instead of raise, is more "180 degrees from E" to my way of thinking.

In E9th literature, the "C" pedal is the one that raises the root and 5th tones a full step. It's not necessarily a sequence - many people arrange their pedals CBA instead of ABC. Calling a pedal that lowers the 5th a "C" pedal really muddles the pedal naming issue.

I know that you've complained about a lack of pedal naming standards in the past. That's why I was surprised to see a "C" pedal in your chart that bore no resemblence to the well-established meaning of the "C pedal" label.

------------------

Bobby Lee (a.k.a. b0b) - email: quasar@b0b.com - gigs - CDs, Open Hearts
Williams D-12 E9, C6add9, Sierra Olympic S-12 (F Diatonic)
Sierra Laptop S-8 (E6add9), Fender Stringmaster D-8 (E13, C6 or A6) My Blog

Jim Sliff · From: Lawndale California, USA

And BECAUSE so many people can't see the forest for the trees I used a simple sequence. A, B, Z wouldn't make ANY sense. Numbering wouldn't, really. By using conventional naming for the physical positions of equipment parts I thought most people would kind of "get" where the pedals were. Maybe I overestimated one person's perception, since no one else has seemed confused when emailed a copy.

Your other copedent was irrelevant to everyone but you, apparently. As you and I have discussed my lack of theory knowledge, you were simply posting a question you knew I couldn't answer, which is rather inflammatory.

You seem to be trying awfully hard to not understand things, or are resistant - I can't figure out which.

[This message was edited by Jim Sliff on 22 November 2006 at 12:26 PM.]

Bobby Lee · From: Cloverdale, California, USA

Actually, I think that I understand your copedent pretty well. Sorry for the 180 degree diversion.

Your 3 pedals are similar to my pedals 2, 3 and 4. I had those same changes a long time ago. Actually, I think you'll see a lot of parallels between your B6add9 and my D6add9. If I were to drop my old copedent from D down to B, it would look like this:

Jim Sliff · From: Lawndale California, USA

Yes, now I do.

I apologize for lashing out a bit...too many darts being thrown my way for no apparent reason lately, and I misread your intent.

Anyway - the nice thing about the copedent (whther the 8 or 10 string version) is its universal-like application. Stay on A&B and mash away for country stuff, use the middle parts for C6 things. In my case, the 2nd-string raise gets adapted as a Clarence White-type "stringbender", since that's what I played for decades. The whole thing does guitar-like runs very easily; but interestingly, traditional E9 pedal steel runs are easy to find and emulate...almost exactly. I find that I can cop just about everything Lloyd Green and JD Maness played on Sweetheart of the Rodeo, and without much hunt-and-peck...it all seems to fall into place.

Yes, there are no chromatics - but instead there's the linearity of C6, but combined with some E9-like changes.

I find it far more intuitive than E9, and although I don't go out of my way to play much traditional country I'm finding it pretty easy to play everything except speed-picking stuff, which really doesn't interest me anyway.

And of course, it does the Sneaky thing pretty well, since it really is HIS copedent. There also seems to be some Ralph Mooney in there somewhere, especially dancing around the middle-string changes.

I'd love it if some other people who are someewhat frustrated with the structure of E9 would try it - I'd like to hear other reactions besides the "cable club" guys, who already know what it does.

I do think, though, this is the first time it's been applied this way. Sneaky did have 10-strings given to him,but all had his usual porcupine-like pedal arrangement.

Well, I've got it with me up in the mountains, so I'm going to have a blast the next few days - Happy Thanksgiving everyone!

Forum Index > Pedal Steel	Goto page 1, 2, 3 Next	Next oldest topic :: Next newest topic