Steel Guitar Wiki

Matthew Walton · Post by **Matthew Walton** » 26 Nov 2012 11:13 pm

If this is already a thing, I would love to know about it, but does a steel guitar wiki exist? I know there are others way more qualified than me to run it, but if nobody else is interested, I just might try to get one up and running. I definitely don't know enough about steel guitar to add much info, but I would love it if everybody would contribute.
What prompted this thought is that I've been trying to find an MSA steel, and I was looking for some history and the difference between some of the models. I was also advised not to get a push/pull, so I was also curious to understand some of the mechanics behind it and why it's ill-advised. Since none of this information is exactly easy or simple to find, I think it would be a great resource.
Thoughts?

Ken Byng · Post by **Ken Byng** » 27 Nov 2012 4:31 am

Already exists in a more complex and detailed environment. AKA The Steel Guitar Forum

Jim Cohen · Post by **Jim Cohen** » 27 Nov 2012 5:47 am

A quick search of Wikipedia turns it up easily:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steel_guitar

and

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pedal_steel_guitar

Stephen Cowell · Post by **Stephen Cowell** » 27 Nov 2012 7:11 am

I happen to understand what Matthew is proposing... an entire Wikipedia composed of steel guitar knowledge, not just an article in the English Wikipedia or a giant, jumbled, disorganized, confused conglomeration of conflicting knowledge (e.g. this forum).

I'd like to hear more about what Matthew envisions. An organized repository for our communal knowledge would be a wonderful thing.

Matthew Walton · Post by **Matthew Walton** » 27 Nov 2012 10:31 am

Exactly Stephen. There are some articles on Wikipedia about steel guitar, but they probably amount to less than 20. I'm talking about creating our own Wikipedia-type website that is devoted entirely to steel guitar. It could have pages for each brand of steel guitar (at least the semi-major ones), and include the history, that would be fascinating to me. I think some articles about some of the more prolific steel guitar players would also be extremely interesting.
Wikipedia already has an article about copedents, but if somebody thinks that there is enough information and it is common enough, we can have an entire article devoted to a single copedent. There could be articles devoted to the different mechanical components of the steel guitar, like push/pull, all pull, and how pedal steels work in general. If you look at the history section for the pedal steel guitar article on Wikipedia, at least half of it is simply devoted to the history of the steel guitar in general.
I definitely don't want to take away from all the great disscusions we have here, but every time somebody asks a question only to be answered with "do a search," it might be possible to just refer them to the wiki article.
That's all I can think of for now.

Jim Cohen · Post by **Jim Cohen** » 27 Nov 2012 10:39 am

I see; sorry I misunderstood you, Matthew. My bad.

Richard Damron · Post by **Richard Damron** » 27 Nov 2012 12:53 pm

An idea with merit, but with two exceptions: -

The plethora of misinformation, disinformation, anecdotal "evidence" and hair-brained ideas purporting to substantiate a claim to the origins of "tone" and "sustain" contained on this forum would require the use of the superscript "Citation needed" on virtually every statement. Such citations are nonexistent.

To my knowledge, there would only be one numbered superscript referring the reader to a source and that would lead the reader to the experiments done by Ed Packard and Jim Palenscar many years ago in relation to the sonic and decay characteristics of some 30+ PSG's. As interesting (to me) as that work was, it still didn't answer the question "why?".

The bald-faced sum is that no one knows. NO ONE.

Please do everyone a favor and don't even attempt to go there.

Why sully up an otherwise informative topic with unmitigated garbage?

Richard

Doug Beaumier · Post by **Doug Beaumier** » 27 Nov 2012 1:17 pm

I too would be concerned about misinformation. My understanding of "Wiki"s is that users can edit the content, adding whatever information they choose to. It sounds like a recipe for disaster... conflicting information, opinions, and bad information. I think people are far better off searching the archives of this forum, reading the threads and making their own assessment of what is Fact and what is opinion.

John Scanlon · Post by **John Scanlon** » 27 Nov 2012 2:51 pm

Thought this site WAS the steel-o-pedia. It's mine, anyway.

I think a forum like this works way better for something like the steel than a wiki would. Wikis are better for movie franchises, etc.

Mike Neer · Post by **Mike Neer** » 27 Nov 2012 3:21 pm

b0b started one 2 or 3 years ago and I was onboard to help, but I think it was too big an undertaking. I just didn't have the time for it, I don't know about b0b.

Richard Damron · Post by **Richard Damron** » 27 Nov 2012 3:42 pm

Mike is right. It would take a month of Sundays for one person to assemble, correlate and edit the vast sum of information available. Better to have one person serve as administrator and delegate areas of interest to several subordinates. Nonetheless, a worthy undertaking if someone is up to the task of heading it up.

Jim Cohen · Post by **Jim Cohen** » 27 Nov 2012 5:17 pm

Richard Damron wrote:Please do everyone a favor and don't even attempt to go there...Why sully up an otherwise informative topic with unmitigated garbage?

Richard Damron wrote:...a worthy undertaking if someone is up to the task of heading it up.

Um, Richard...? Is you wid us or is you agin' us? You IS confusing us!

Matthew Walton · Post by **Matthew Walton** » 27 Nov 2012 6:12 pm

Doug and Richard, misinformation is always possible, but I think that avoiding wiki info wars about subjective things like tone would be to either have a really short article (a "stub") about the factors in tone e.g. amp type, knob settings, mods, attack angle, pick material etc., or just outlaw articles about subjective topics. I think that the first option would be better, since it allows readers to gain knowledge about the subject, while still only providing facts.
John, this forum is great, and I can tell you that I for one will never leave, but I do think there are some things that don’t necessarily need discussion to learn about.
Mike and Richard, that is why I am suggesting a wiki. I figured that we could require an account to edit, and depending on what others think, possibly require each account to be accepted by hand. I guess it could have something to do with PMing one of the wiki admins, but I’m really getting ahead of myself.

Richard Damron · Post by **Richard Damron** » 28 Nov 2012 6:36 am

Jimbeaux -

My objection is solely with the possible inclusion of topics where conjecture reigns and fact is in short, even nonexistent supply. The bulk of the wiki would certainly be fact-based, subject to scrutiny, and ultimately corrected if found to be in error. Such cannot be said for the topics which I object to.

In short - I am both with ya and agin ya but I am being very selective when it comes to the integrity of the wiki.

Would you have anything other than honesty prevail? I think not.

Richard

Larry Baker · Post by **Larry Baker** » 28 Nov 2012 3:36 pm

My understanding of wiki is: I don't know what the Hell you are talking about!!!!

Jonathan Slyker · Post by **Jonathan Slyker** » 28 Nov 2012 10:29 pm

Allow me to confuse the matter further.

I recall thinking about this this spring when somebody posted something bemoaning some inaccuracy in Wiki and the fact that “anybody who wants can put bad content into Wikipedia. Ironically, about the same time , Mr. Fishell posted this statement about the halting of the BE biography:

http://bb.steelguitarforum.com/viewtopi ... +biography

I think the topics are related, but I’ll get to that later. First things first.

My first problem is that I don’t understand exactly what a “wiki” is. I didn’t open the links Jim posted on 11/27, but I do know that there’s an entry in Wikipedia and I used it to get started a while back before I started playing.

I guess there is a vehicle available via Wiki where the same “journalistic” or “intellectual content/property” rules apply. The theory is that as long as there are checks and balances, that is, there is a community of interested parties, the articles will, by and large, be accurate. I recall a formal scientific study that was reported in the media a few years ago. There was a lot of scorn being heaped onto Wikipedia at the time, as if I were an inferior product that you got for free (you get what you pay for?). The study demonstrated (using expert panels on each topic) that Wikipedia had at least as high, and probably higher, accuracy across the board, than Brittanica did. I can supply the citing if needed, if somebody questions the study finding.

There is a clash of paradigms. Let’s say somebody from the “old days” of books (published for profit of the publishing company but also with benefit to both the author and reader). There’s only so many ways a person (or a few people; like a scholarly “edited book,” where there’s a series of articles that are related only thematically,but don’t follow a single thread such as in a book with an “author”) could write such a book. First, they could make it up, which is not really on option for obvious reasons. Nobody would listen, or hardly anybody. So now let’s say a person wanted to mine every piece of info on SGF, organize it, discard the chaff along with quite a bit of wheat, and have an excellent, accurate, and interesting book. Nobody could stop him/her from making a profit on the book if he/she gave due credit to SGF. Could they? What promise or contract does SGF have with READERS (not posters)? I think none. So let’s say it’s mildly inaccurate. It will likely have less readership, and so on, the theory of the market. A good product will sell better than a bad one. Problems are 2, first, somebody could make a living recycling precious content from SGF, 10 or more. 2nd, they might make money telling lies or distortions.

I can tell you, obscuring the true details of the players and the topic, that I came across an interesting fact published in an article by a historian in a well respected university that is deep in C & W territory (i.e., West or South). I reached out to some sources closer to “Nashville” commercial music and asked them about the fact. They categorically contradicted this article, gave good info back up their point, and moreover, they said something about the author of the “questionable” info: “he/she makes things up.” Nevertheless, this person makes a living off of his/her writing, and his/her readers are getting misinformed!?

So now we come back to the theme: scholarship. Truth. “Truth.”

Nobody in popular culture, or hardly anybody, cares about copedents, Hawaiians, Webb Pierce, or anything of the ilk. Just a few people. The best people!

So what happens in that other home of knowing a very lot about a very little (academia)? Somebody convinces a publisher that he/she is the authority on whatever, writes the book, or edits the writing of other experts, and the book is published for posterity, universities, Library of Congress, and aficionados/experts of the topic.

Steel guitar, as a young instrument, does not have a “Bible,” forgive the use of the word, no offense to anyone. How many books have been written about piano, violin, or even Bassoon? Hundreds, at least, for each instrument. Somebody always cares about it enough to write about it.

How do scholars survive in universities? Not from the kids’ tuition. No, they have to get grants and pay their own way or they’re out. Publish or perish.

So, though I only have passing acquaintance with this topic, I think the “old” way is represented by either grant-funded authors or investing publishers. But it’s also a vicious cycle: absence of steel guitar in classical orchestras or either in jazz, for the most part, means marginalization in commercial publishing. And that marginalization perpetuates itself when SG is not taught by more than a few hundred or thousand people, at most. A very rare, fine, wine.

In this model, traditionally, the person with the greatest fund of knowledge gets to do the writing. The book takes one perspective or another; no way to do history, styles, tech-talk, recordings, lineage, etc., all in one book.

Is this where the chaotic/democratic method of the wiki comes in?

The golden agers of SG need to pass on their wisdom and factual knowledge. Perhaps if it were not the obligation of being biographical, the hall-of-famers would speak publicly, especially to set the record straight and not let somebody lie or distort for profit.

Is there anybody on the forum who knows anybody in academic, especially the humanities, who can brainstorm about who can “write the book?” To organize and make sequential the knowledge base of the SGF would take years, really. Somebody needs to get the ball rolling, and write “a book.” There is scholarship about the rest of country music, jazz, blues, etc. So the same will go for SG.

Unless, of course, wiki is just as good. I just don’t know how, exactly, the material is made more coherent as more and more people get to put in their 2 cents.

Neither approach, of course, is exclusive of the other, as Brittanica still sells books, I guess. Whenever I want info, where do I go? Wikipedia: their stuff is instant and free. The street market. Give it away for free.

Who knows? Come forward all you writers, publishers, journalists, lawyers, or whatever.

Forgive the long post.

Jim Cohen · Post by **Jim Cohen** » 28 Nov 2012 10:34 pm

There are at least a few university music professors who are steel-playing members of the Forum...

Post by **Dave Mudgett** » 29 Nov 2012 8:20 am

A wiki is basically an encyclopedia, and encyclopedias are really only useful to compile 'settled knowledge'. Without getting deeply into epistemology, the philosophy of what actually constitutes 'knowledge' and how it's acquired and validated, I'd say that at least it is required that for knowledge to be 'settled', there needs to be general agreement among practitioners about it. So it is imperative that the scope of any such wiki be strictly limited to ideas that are generally agreed upon. For steel guitar, I think this is a fairly small number of ideas. The current wikis already discuss the basics at a level (IMO) much better than the typical general encyclopedia would do, so that function is already out there. Seriously, I view the typical encyclopedia as not much more than a coffee table book, for light reading to get a glimpse of a topic.

In my opinion, if you want to get more detailed than this, you're treading on thin ice. You could, for example, talk about the evolution of different pedal steel mechanisms, the gist of various tuning approaches, fill in a bit more detail about how the instrument has been used, perhaps give a bit more detailed info on the history of obviously and generally-agreed-upon significant players, and have some sub-articles of factual information about how to do things like tune (hell, we can't even all agree on how to do that), set up and repair various types of mechanisms, and so on. But 'opinion' and 'taste' inevitably rear their ugly little heads if you don't stay on the straight and narrow path, and there's really no place for those in a wiki.

There are a number of other problems doing this, in my opinion. First, the quality of any article is strictly limited by the accuracy and scope of knowledge and writing ability of the people involved. This is a task for people who really understand the instrument broadly and deeply, are articulate, and who have probably been playing it for a long time. Most of the interest in such a wiki is probably among people who are at the fairly early stages of learning or want to learn - these are clearly not the right people to write such a wiki, that's the 'blind leading the blind' and would be more harm than good, IMO. I don't see much motivation for the right people to do this. It would be extremely time consuming, as Mike notes above, and it's not clear to me how they would benefit. I could see why someone might want to write a commercial book on this (if he/she thought there was enough market to justify it, even that is dubious to me). But why spend years of diligent effort on a wiki when what you really like to do is play steel guitar?

I also think most serious musicians realize you can't summarize a whole community-of-practice in an article or series of articles. 'Practice' is messy, there are lots and lots of ways to look at the same thing, and you get there by slogging through long periods of practice, research into competing ideas and approaches, trial and error, and hopefully some type of convergence. I think wading through a "giant, jumbled, disorganized, confused conglomeration of conflicting knowledge (e.g. this forum)" and critically examining how you're going to find a place for yourself in a give-and-take exchange (like with a teacher or on this forum) is a huge part of the process. Sorry, there really are a lot of conflicting ideas about steel guitar, no wiki is going to change that. You cannot settle knowledge by decree.

My opinions.

Stephen Cowell · Post by **Stephen Cowell** » 29 Nov 2012 9:57 am

But why spend years of diligent effort on a wiki when what you really like to do is play steel guitar?

I think the logorrhea shown in this forum, and in this thread in particular, demonstrates that the key-clicking horsepower is out there. Why indeed post a 500-word essay instead of playing your guitar?

AFA the 'argument' argument, the Wiki paradigm has taken this into account... forums are available to discuss each article, moderators are available to watch the editing or lock the article if it gets too contentious. I've watched the combined knowledge of UseNet disappear as Google saw fit to discard it... the only way to protect this kind of thing is to bite the bullet and do the work.

Stephen Cowell · Post by **Stephen Cowell** » 29 Nov 2012 10:06 am

My first problem is that I don’t understand exactly what a “wiki” is.

Wikipedia is a Wiki.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wiki

"
* A wiki invites all users to edit any page or to
create new pages within the wiki Web site, using
only a plain-vanilla Web browser without any extra
add-ons.

* Wiki promotes meaningful topic associations between
different pages by making page link creation almost
intuitively easy and showing whether an intended
target page exists or not.

* A wiki is not a carefully crafted site for casual
visitors. Instead, it seeks to involve the visitor
in an ongoing process of creation and collaboration
that constantly changes the Web site landscape.
"

Basically, a wiki is a specialized Wikipedia. The labor is shared. Everyone helps. Everyone gets a say... if someone is disruptive etc they can be dealt with appropriately.

Post by **Dave Mudgett** » 29 Nov 2012 11:54 am

To anybody here - if you want to create a steel guitar wiki, nobody is trying to stop you. I simply don't think it will be useful unless you can convince very knowledgeable steel players, builders, and so on, to be part of it. It could even have negative utility if it's not done well.

Stephen, as far as your conclusion about logorrhea goes, I disagree. It takes a few minutes to rattle off a post on this forum, which is a set of conversations between (mostly) practitioners of steel guitar. That does not imply the wherewithal to do a useful wiki. This forum has proven usefulness and doesn't need to converge to anything - it is what it is, a signed set of opinions about various aspects of steel guitar. You have that signature (and the history of that poster) up-front to help critically evaluate information.

In contrast, a wiki needs to generally converge somewhere if it is to be useful. The other danger is that even if it converges, it may converge to what amounts to misinformation. I think that is the worry of many of the posters here, including me.

Doug Beaumier · Post by **Doug Beaumier** » 29 Nov 2012 12:59 pm

Everyone gets a say...

That's the problem. I'm reminded of the recent thread here about opinions and the relative value of experience in forming (or evaluating) opinions. In the real world expertise counts, on the internet, not so much evidently.

I'm with Dave on this one. I wouldn't trust a source that is compiled and edited by anyone who cares to sign up and contribute something. Forums operate that way, and the readers can Search the archives, read replies from members, some of whom builders, some pro players, some beginners... evaluate the information, and come to their own conclusions. But a Steel Wiki? With steel guitar information according to who? (or is that whom?)

Jonathan Slyker · Post by **Jonathan Slyker** » 29 Nov 2012 3:59 pm

After reading the discussion about the downside of the wiki approach, I believe somebody in academia, and/or development (a fancy word for begging money from foundations to go to your organization), needs to go to the biggest publisher of country music books, guitar books, etc. Invite that publisher to go visit any of the living icons who will talk and get a sense of the depth and breadth of knowledge. Bill Malone at the Country Music Hall of Fame might have some ideas about how to dig up front money for the book.

At that point,there needs to be a musicologist etc. with enough guitar savvy who is interested in writing the book. The book will probably either by a book "by Lloyd Green and Maurice Anderson [just a hypothetical'] as told to Joe Schmo."

Of course the academic person can certainly spend a few thousand hours reading SGF and ignoring the nonsense. If 10 living hall of famers and other journeymen will be interviewed, even together in pairs so as to keep the conversation rolling, a few beers, and the academic could just let the tape roll. This is how a lot of books get written. The more biggies that agree to speak to the book, the more the robust consensus items will coalesce, but minor shades of opinion could be kept as jumping off points.

An outside chance but how 'bout this: a musicology graduate student is a steel lover and asks permission from his dept. to do his dissertation about steel?

Universities are fanatical about accuracy and ethics of citing information sources, so that would cover that base. Graduate student is another term for "slave," but a dissertation often is a spark that either inspires others to take up the topic or it puts the author of the dissertation in a good position to lead the way in additional books about the instrument.

Joe Alterio · Post by **Joe Alterio** » 29 Nov 2012 7:37 pm

What I always envisioned was a webpage that takes all of the various reviews (from here) for each instrument, amp, pedal, album, etc. and compiled all of them.

For example, you could have a listing of "Pedal Steels". Under that, you would have a page listing all the manufacturers.....click "Sho-Bud". That would open another page with all of the models they made (further segregated by era, for the pre-pot metal models). Then you can click on "The Professional" and a page opens up with EVERY legitimate review of the steel from the 10+years of posts that exist here....AND a full, detailed description of the instrument based on consensus information from all the posts (ex: 1 guy says the pickups were X and 5 others, including Buddy Emmons, say it they were Y, then Y would be your basis).

The data would include all pertinent info, from pedal stiffness and "play" to fretboard length, from type of tuners used to the cabinet design/construction and materials used.

I actually started to compile this info about 8 or 9 years ago, but it was truly something that could not be tackled by someone with a day job.

And yes, while all the data can be found on a search, you will find yourself struggling through literally HUNDREDS of posts scattered across DOZENS of threads. Do a search on a Peavey Session 400 and it can get overwhelming, especially if you just want to get some recommended settings (something I also envisioned would be part of the amp pages).

Jeff Scott Brown · Post by **Jeff Scott Brown** » 29 Nov 2012 7:47 pm

Dave Mudgett wrote:A wiki is basically an encyclopedia, and encyclopedias are really only useful to compile 'settled knowledge'.

I am a technologist, work with a lot of wikis, and that has definitely not been my experience. Some people think a wiki is basically an encyclopedia because that is how some happen to be used, the most popular of course being Wikipedia. However, wikis can be used in a lot of ways that aren't like encyclopedias. Wikis can be used to facilitate collaboration, collect notes, evolve ideas as a team, etc.

I don't think of a wiki as an encyclopedia. I think of a wiki as a web site that allows content to be edited using the site itself. Our team sets up wikis for different purposes, almost never to act just as a silo for "settled knowledge" as you put it.

A practical example... If there were a PSG wiki, there might be a page that lists upcoming seminars and conferences. That could be updated regularly. That wouldn't be anything like an encyclopedia.

Just my 2 cents.

JSB

Steel Guitar Wiki

What do you think about a steel guitar wiki?

Steel Guitar Wiki