Steel, is it getting pushed out???

[b0b]

A lead guitar player still doesn't mean, "play all the time."
There is no more lead instrument than the pedal steel, when its time to be play its time to play and and heard, it is about as useless as a saxophone as a rhythm instrument.

That is simply not true. When I'm not playing fills or soloing, I play rhythm. Sometimes I'll stop playing for a quiet passage, but I don't stop just because someone else is playing lead. The guitarist plays rhythm while I'm soloing. Why shouldn't I return the favor?

If you can't play rhythm on your pedal steel, you're only half a steel player in my opinion. Perpetuating the stereotype of pedal steel as a "lead only" instrument is not at all helpful. That attitude is part of why steel players don't get a lot of jobs in 4- and 5-piece bands.

[Herb Steiner]

It depends on the formation of the band.

There are times when the steel must do something non-lead, like determining what the chord is over and above the bass line, in the absence of any other chordal instrument.

But if there's another rhythm instrument, such as a piano or acoustic rhythm guitar, steel rhythm added to the mix can be a dubious choice. Reason: electric guitar and steel often both fit the same particular sonic space, and overfilling that space makes the sound cluttered and without differentiation.

When an instrument is absent sonically, it means so much more when it makes an appearance. Rarely do I play 100% of the time; probably half the night is spent with my hands in my lap, not intruding over what my lead guitar colleague has to say, and waiting for him to give me the floor. Then he turns down, plays no fills or bass runs and drastically reduces playing anything that would conflict with what I'm about to say. The guitarists I work with generally behave thusly. I feel fortunate that I most often work with grown-ups, and not guitar divas.

I've been in bands in which I've had to play "rhythm steel," out of necessity. But IMHO it's a rhythm instrument of last resort. And a fiddler or harmonica player thinking he's got a rhythm part to contribute generally makes the gig long and less than interesting for me.

[Paul Stauskas]

A lead guitar player still doesn't mean, "play all the time."
There is no more lead instrument than the pedal steel, when its time to be play its time to play and and heard, it is about as useless as a saxophone as a rhythm instrument.

That is simply not true. When I'm not playing fills or soloing, I play rhythm. Sometimes I'll stop playing for a quiet passage, but I don't stop just because someone else is playing lead. The guitarist plays rhythm while I'm soloing. Why shouldn't I return the favor?

If you can't play rhythm on your pedal steel, you're only half a steel player in my opinion. Perpetuating the stereotype of pedal steel as a "lead only" instrument is not at all helpful. That attitude is part of why steel players don't get a lot of jobs in 4- and 5-piece bands.

I don't want to speak for Jonny but I am sure he plays rhythm on steel... when the song calls for it. I have seen it on Youtube videos. There are times to sit out though, instead of playing rhythm and filling that space simply because "you can."

Playing because "you can" sounds like the Rich Upright philosophy. Playing to contribute to the song is the Jonny Lam philosophy. I know which of the two I prefer.

[Bill Moore]

A lead guitar player still doesn't mean, "play all the time."

Sorry, to some of them, that is exactly what it means. As far as steel players being pushed out, the original question, some bands just don't want to allow the steel to share the music. And there is always this; "why split the money someone who doesn't really do much in the band, I can play all that stuff on my guitar."

[Harry Teachman]

What Herb said about the formation of the band holds true. I would also add to this the kind of music has a direct bearing on whether the player does pads, rhythm, lead, or lays out altogether.
In a couple of weeks, I'll be playing with a group of musicians from high school (horns, keyboard, and the usual bass, guitar and drums).We do all classic rock and roll (Van Morrison, Lovin' Spoonful, etc.). I use rhythm, pads, and lead and it fits in perfectly. Very few pedal steel cliche' licks if any. Works for me and the rest of the band also.
I should point out that this is not a regular steady gig (once a year), it is a wine tasting benefit for the high school alumni association for scholarships.

[Fred Treece]

Playing because "you can" sounds like the Rich Upright philosophy. Playing to contribute to the song is the Jonny Lam philosophy. I know which of the two I prefer.

The Rich Upright philosophy more importantly includes being a multi-instrumentalist, which would go a long way for steel guitar players in search of a gig. Being able to sing, which contributes to the song pretty directly, never hurt anyone's chances either.

Some of the things people have said in this thread about respecting the music as well as your band mates should be in a Music/101 textbook.

[Jonathan Lam]

I feel the nature/range of the instrument does not really lend itself to playing harmonic rhythm (like e piano for example, or even a fiddle) in a great way, it is DIFFICULT to assert yourself rhythmically without being overbearing and not contribute to the sound of a band. a lot of instruments CAN do a lot of things, but each instrument has a special way it can contribute that only IT can do, and RHYTHM is not the thing that pedal steel its known for.

There are always situations where you have to do things because of necessity, but I feel like we aren't talking desperation situations.

I think in MOST typical situations, steel is best reserved for the spots to lift music and to constantly play is diluting your greatest asset. For me steel does not fight well with other instruments, you either have to punch through with insane volume or the music sounds jumbled.


For me, the bass/drums is doing the majority of the work, so its not a favor to play rhythm for a guitar player if its going to become too cluttered. I am not familiar with the situations you play in B0b so I won't speak for you and I have tremendous respect for what you do, but for me (AND I DO PLAY RHYTHM because sometimes you just HAVE TO) Id RATHER just sit back when I'm not backing someone up. In general I am a big fan of space.

BESIDES we all know that there is nothing lead guitarists love to do more than to play their own rhythm and fill themselves.

Ask Will van Horn, he loves playing too much.

[Tony Prior]

For me steel does not fight well with other instruments, you either have to punch through with insane volume or the music sounds jumbled.


BESIDES we all know that there is nothing lead guitarists love to do more than to play their own rhythm and fill themselves.

Ask Will van Horn, he loves playing too much.

???


A well polished unit of various Musicians/Instruments , including the Steel, runs like a clock.

[Chris Walke]

Quite frankly these days, I scratch my head when someone tells me they only play rhythm guitar in a band. To me that imply's they are strumming chords over integral parts and phrases on top of what another lead Instrument may be playing.

Rhythm guitar does not mean play strumming chords all the time.

Hmmm… I find dedicated rhythm players to be rare & precious these days. I appreciate it when I hear them.

There’s a local band that plays this retro instrumental rock & roll stuff. Lead guitarist, rhythm guitarist, bass, drums. It’s pretty fantastic, and I was quite amazed by the rhythm guitarist – yes, he played rhythm all night, locked in with the bass/drum grooves. His rhythm was not over the lead guitarist, it was underneath it, constant (unless the whole rhythm section had a stop), transparent, no clutter, and no stepping on the lead guitarist’s rhythmic passages (when both were on rhythmic passages, they were sympathetic).

As a guitarist, I was more captivated by the rhythm player than the front man on lead.

[b0b]

I often play boom-chick or tick-tack parts in country songs and Chuck Berry rhythms in classic rock songs. Except for strumming, most of what the electric guitarist does when he's not playing lead, I can play on steel. Of course, if you're married to a 10-string E9th you don't have the low end to comp rhythm. I guess it's a personal choice.

As far as "strumming" goes, the copedent has to be designed for it. Chuck Campbell and Robert Randolph have no problem strumming rhythm.

[Tony Prior]

Quite frankly these days, I scratch my head when someone tells me they only play rhythm guitar in a band. To me that imply's they are strumming chords over integral parts and phrases on top of what another lead Instrument may be playing.

Rhythm guitar does not mean play strumming chords all the time.

Hmmm… I find dedicated rhythm players to be rare & precious these days. I appreciate it when I hear them.

There’s a local band that plays this retro instrumental rock & roll stuff. Lead guitarist, rhythm guitarist, bass, drums. It’s pretty fantastic, and I was quite amazed by the rhythm guitarist – yes, he played rhythm all night, locked in with the bass/drum grooves. His rhythm was not over the lead guitarist, it was underneath it, constant (unless the whole rhythm section had a stop), transparent, no clutter, and no stepping on the lead guitarist’s rhythmic passages (when both were on rhythmic passages, they were sympathetic).

As a guitarist, I was more captivated by the rhythm player than the front man on lead.

I certainly agree that a GUITAR player who plays rhythm is great, but thats not the same as a guitar player who claims to only play rhythm, such as an acoustic player who only knows 3 chords during a typical country song . And that person is strumming all the way thru the song using just those 3 chords.

thats what I am referring to...

I removed my comments above as they were misleading . Certainly a quality guitar player is a quality guitar player whether they are playing lead or rhythm with the band. I play rhythm sometimes all night behind a Sax. It's not a night for any solo's sometimes . And I'm not great either but I can apply Joe Pass's dirty dozen chords !

And yes, I agree, quality dedicated rhythm players are rare & precious these days, but I don't think thats what the op is referring to in this thread and my response earlier was based on that.

I get it ! sorry for my confusion.

[b0b]

The fewer musicians in the band, the more you have to play. It's as simple as that. In a 6- or 7- piece band, you can sit on your hands until the leader points at you. In a quartet, things can get awful empty when you just stop playing. You can stop for effect, that's about it. In a trio or duo, don't even think about it.

[Fred Treece]

The fewer musicians in the band, the more you have to play. It's as simple as that. In a 6- or 7- piece band, you can sit on your hands until the leader points at you. In a quartet, things can get awful empty when you just stop playing. You can stop for effect, that's about it. In a trio or duo, don't even think about it.

A bass player friend of mine was doing a trio one night, and he filled every possible gap you could imagine. Even played chords behind the guitar solos. His teacher happened to be in the audience, and on break he went backstage and gave my friend a "WTF are you doing?" lecture.

I get your point, though, Bob. The groove needs to be solid, and in a small group it is critical that each player contribute to creating it. Playing solos is different too, and more fun in some ways. The example I gave is one of taking the approach too far - misunderstanding your role and overplaying.

[b0b]

I actually prefer playing rhythm parts to soloing. For me, contributing to the groove is much more satisfying than soloing. Your mileage may vary.

[Richard Lotspeich]

Im with Bob. Ive always,,wanted to be "a band member".I didnt want to be just a steel player. What ever I can do to make the whole band sound better at any time, is ,and always has been my goal.

[Dan Robinson]

The fewer musicians in the band, the more you have to play.

I think the flip-side is, the more pieces, the SMARTER you have to play. Playing less is important, but there's more to the puzzle.

The lead guitar player does more than just solos. In the same vein, steel can be used as accompaniment. With a well rehearsed band you can all be weaving textures. It's tempting to overplay because it just sounds so darn good! It requires cooperation, trust, work, and conversations as adults.

I can't let my ego get bruised when my keyboard player tells me, "watch out on the break after the 2nd verse. Last time you walked all-over my piano part."

A talented quarterback won't get that Super Bowl ring unless his team can win. It's the same way in a band. No matter how good you play, if the band sounds crowded and sloppy you'll sound bad If the band shines, you will sound great.

I'm not making a lot of money doing this band thing. We're just part-timers, and wouldn't make a lot of money no matter how we went about this. But we are working, it's starting to sound good, I'm learning a whole lot, and loving it.

[Fred Treece]

The fewer musicians in the band, the more you have to play.

I think the flip-side is, the more pieces, the SMARTER you have to play.

Ouch?
Arranging material so it fits the personnel and the band configuration is important no matter how big the band is, just as is mutual respect and musical ability. There have been some damn smart sounding trios.

[Bob Hoffnar]

The fewer musicians in the band, the more you have to play. It's as simple as that. In a 6- or 7- piece band, you can sit on your hands until the leader points at you. In a quartet, things can get awful empty when you just stop playing. You can stop for effect, that's about it. In a trio or duo, don't even think about it.

I understand what you mean. Especially if the music seems to need certain parts. But I have been doing the opposite for a while now. Sometimes when the group is small the less I'll play. That way the playing doesn't sound forced and simple phrases can have more weight. In a way that is the cool part about simple duet or 3 piece gigs. You can hang and wait till just the right time to make a clear statement without searching for a spot in the clutter.

As far as the steel should do this or not do that goes it all depends on the musician playing the steel and the music. Every time I think I have it figured out somebody does all the wrong things and it works perfectly.

[Dan Robinson]

The fewer musicians in the band, the more you have to play.

I think the flip-side is, the more pieces, the SMARTER you have to play.

Ouch?
Arranging material so it fits the personnel and the band configuration is important no matter how big the band is, just as is mutual respect and musical ability. There have been some damn smart sounding trios.

Fred, that was not meant to sting. Did it come across as snarky?

Let me try it this way... I'm finding that playing with more pieces in the band, I HAVE TO PLAY SMARTER.

If I played with fewer, the same would apply.

[Fred Treece]

Fred, that was not meant to sting. Did it come across as snarky?
Let me try it this way... I'm finding that playing with more pieces in the band, I HAVE TO PLAY SMARTER. .

We are highly opinionated musicians. As diplomatic as we may strive to be, we can't prevent the snark. But there's good snark and bad snark. Bad snark gets your post deleted. Yours wasn't any more snarky than my response to it. I could have said, "yeah, I know what you mean, but maybe I would have said it like this--- blah blah blah." But that's no fun. We're good.

[Dan Robinson]

This thread has drifted far and wide from the the OP. In spite of that, or maybe because of it, it's interesting and informative.

Lots of food for thought. I'm reading posts more than once and having a different reaction each time. Hmm, is this where we say "it's an art more than a science?"

Yes, Fred... we're good

BTW, I miss Chris Ivey.

[Jay Yuskaitis]

Seems to be on par with the Model T. Jay Y.

[Fred Treece]

This thread has drifted far and wide from the the OP. In spite of that, or maybe because of it, it's interesting and informative.

Lots of food for thought. I'm reading posts more than once and having a different reaction each time. Hmm, is this where we say "it's an art more than a science?"

Yes, Fred... we're good

BTW, I miss Chris Ivey.

This wasn't a nuts n bolts topic. It was bound to drift off tangentially, return, drift off again, etc., as any meaningful discussion on a subjective topic should. Chris Ivey's take on it would have been colorful, I'm sure.

"Art more than science", hmm. Are we talking about playing steel again, and whether or not we think it is being pushed out of the current music scene?

[Dan Robinson]

Seems to be on par with the Model T. Jay Y.

The Model T is gone, there are more drivers than ever, Ford is best selling vehicle in America.

Pedal steel innovations? MSA Legend is a Lexus. The new Sierra is the Tesla of steel guitars.

Maybe it is getting pushed out. Let's push back!

[Tony Prior]

What exactly is this thread about now ?