Diddles Explained

[Stu]

I've always looked at rudiments as being the rhythmic alphabet.

Slight tweak to your analogy: Rhythms are the alphabet; the Rudiments and various Hybrids are words; and the words (Rudiments/Hybrids) form sentences (Phrases): For example, an English word is constructed with letters of the alphabet; and words form sentences. Also, you "read" a word and a sentence (not by dissecting the individual letters) but by interpreting the various combinations. The same holds true for rhythmic construction.

[actucker]

I've always looked at rudiments as being the rhythmic alphabet.

That would make sense if every single piece of music in our language were made up of the 40 letters that are included in the PAS 40. It doesn't work that way.

[actucker]

Music is a language; rhythm is part of that language; and naming rhythms within that language is certainly a logical construct. To counter here: by your reasoning, (and for you to be consistent), the concept of *naming* a combination of pitches (ie naming chords) would therefore also seem a little silly to you; the concept of naming styles (ie straight v swing) would also seem a little silly to you; etc...

But we aren't naming rhythms. We're naming stickings. A name for a rhythm would be like "dotted 8th note", or "quarter note triplet". There are infinite ways to stick a a particular set of rhythms, just as there are infinite ways to construct the same idea with words. But we don't go around making up funny little names for common phrases. People just know the phrases from seeing them often in music.

My point isn't that rudiments are pointless, only that far too much emphasis is putting on learning them in early development of players. Knowing the PAS 40 by name is not a prerequisite to playing well, or even being able to play those exact combinations when we see them.

[Stu]

But we aren't naming rhythms. We're naming stickings. A name for a rhythm would be like "dotted 8th note", or "quarter note triplet". There are infinite ways to stick a a particular set of rhythms, just as there are infinite ways to construct the same idea with words. But we don't go around making up funny little names for common phrases. People just know the phrases from seeing them often in music.

My point isn't that rudiments are pointless, only that far too much emphasis is putting on learning them in early development of players. Knowing the PAS 40 by name is not a prerequisite to playing well, or even being able to play those exact combinations when we see them.

a) I agree with your earlier comment on approaching the drum set (as an individual player). When it is just you driving a jazz/rock/country band strict sticking combinations can be restrictive to individual feel and you do not have to exhibit uniform playing style.

b) I also agree that young students should learn time, feel, dynamics, and musical phrasing before the rudiments. However...

c) Stickings do change the sound and feel of a rhythm; paradiddles sound and feel different than single stroke accents; flam taps sound and feel different than inverted flam taps; etc...

d) By it's very nature drumming is visual as well as audio because you can see the stick motions and combinations. So, when two or more performers are playing the same rhythms, sticking combinations must be clarified; and the most efficient way to accomplish that uniformity is to just name the various sticking combinations.

e) As to naming the Rudiments, please read my post #11 about rudiments being more akin to words not letters of the alphabet.

Edited November 5, 2011 by Stu

[nngs9]

Slight tweak to your analogy: Rhythms are the alphabet; the Rudiments and various Hybrids are words; and the words (Rudiments/Hybrids) form sentences (Phrases): For example, an English word is constructed with letters of the alphabet; and words form sentences. Also, you "read" a word and a sentence (not by dissecting the individual letters) but by interpreting the various combinations. The same holds true for rhythmic construction.

This is precisely what i was getting at, thank you for spelling it out Stu! I don't understand why people seem to think DCP is a contest to prove other people opinions as being wrong.

[actucker]

a) I agree with your earlier comment on approaching the drum set (as an individual player). When it is just you driving a jazz/rock/country band strict sticking combinations can be restrictive to individual feel and you do not have to exhibit uniform playing style.

b) I also agree that young students should learn time, feel, dynamics, and musical phrasing before the rudiments. However...

c) Stickings do change the sound and feel of a rhythm; paradiddles sound and feel different than single stroke accents; flam taps sound and feel different than inverted flam taps; etc...

d) By it's very nature drumming is visual as well as audio because you can see the stick motions and combinations. So, when two or more performers are playing the same rhythms, sticking combinations must be clarified; and the most efficient way to accomplish that uniformity is to just name the various sticking combinations.

e) As to naming the Rudiments, please read my post #11 about rudiments being more akin to words not letters of the alphabet.

But isn't the goal of learning a language to be fluent enough in it so that you don't have to rely on an extremely limited vocabulary? 40 words isn't exactly an expansive vocabulary to choose from. That's not even addressing the fact that most students entering high school can only play those rudiments on their own, and have no idea how to put any of those rudiments into context. They can't bridge the gap between knowing what a rudiment is, and being able to recognize it in reading and execute it.

Again, I'm not arguing against the use of learning common stickings. Only that in my own playing and teaching, I've found that knowing the names for stickings is completely insignificant in comparison to being able to execute them. Being able to adapt your sticking quickly and easily (something I've often used the stone book for with my private students) is a much more valuable tool. There's also the fact that many of the rudiments in the typical list (lets use the PAS 40 as the most common example) are completely redundant. Do we really need to spend time knowing 10 different open roll rudiments? Wouldn't understanding how to read rhythms, and knowing what a double stroke roll is suffice? I know I've never in my life looked at a piece of music and asked myself "is that a 15 stroke roll, or a 17 stroke roll". I just see a rhythm written with an open stroke roll and play the open stroke roll that would correspond. I don't need a name for it.

The fact is, it makes much more sense to focus on concepts. Can we play hand to hand singles well? Can we execute a double stroke roll and a closed roll and smoothly transition between the two? Do we understand the concept behind paradiddles (because really, who here really had to work on triple paradiddles once they figured out how to play paradiddles)? Do we understand grace notes, and how to create the appropriate space between them and the primary stroke? All of these things are things that a lot of rising 9th graders don't understand. But they can play me the correct sticking for a ratamacue (a rudiment I think I've seen written in context once in 20 years of drumming/teaching).

Again, I'm not saying that learning common stickings is useless, or even that rudiments in general is useless. I simply think far too much emphasis is put on learning rudiments on a list, and nowhere near enough is put on learning how to drum correctly. I know a lot of guys who get names of rudiments mixed up. But they can read any piece of percussion music you put in front of them. Music is not written with rudiment names. Again, its not that different from students who learn the scale concept for all state auditions, and yet can't recognize that same group of notes in music. Is that particular format of a scale really that important, or is it more important that they recognize a common group of notes at a glance. Isn't it about the practical application more than it is about formulas and worksheets? If I'm putting together a snare line, I'd rather have 9 guys who can drum, but can't name me a single one of the PAS 40, than 9 guys who know their rudiments cold but can't get a double stroke roll to sound good.

[Stu]

But isn't the goal of learning a language to be fluent enough in it so that you don't have to rely on an extremely limited vocabulary? 40 words isn't exactly an expansive vocabulary to choose from. That's not even addressing the fact that most students entering high school can only play those rudiments on their own, and have no idea how to put any of those rudiments into context. They can't bridge the gap between knowing what a rudiment is, and being able to recognize it in reading and execute it.

Again, I'm not arguing against the use of learning common stickings. Only that in my own playing and teaching, I've found that knowing the names for stickings is completely insignificant in comparison to being able to execute them. Being able to adapt your sticking quickly and easily (something I've often used the stone book for with my private students) is a much more valuable tool. There's also the fact that many of the rudiments in the typical list (lets use the PAS 40 as the most common example) are completely redundant. Do we really need to spend time knowing 10 different open roll rudiments? Wouldn't understanding how to read rhythms, and knowing what a double stroke roll is suffice? I know I've never in my life looked at a piece of music and asked myself "is that a 15 stroke roll, or a 17 stroke roll". I just see a rhythm written with an open stroke roll and play the open stroke roll that would correspond. I don't need a name for it.

The fact is, it makes much more sense to focus on concepts. Can we play hand to hand singles well? Can we execute a double stroke roll and a closed roll and smoothly transition between the two? Do we understand the concept behind paradiddles (because really, who here really had to work on triple paradiddles once they figured out how to play paradiddles)? Do we understand grace notes, and how to create the appropriate space between them and the primary stroke? All of these things are things that a lot of rising 9th graders don't understand. But they can play me the correct sticking for a ratamacue (a rudiment I think I've seen written in context once in 20 years of drumming/teaching).

Again, I'm not saying that learning common stickings is useless, or even that rudiments in general is useless. I simply think far too much emphasis is put on learning rudiments on a list, and nowhere near enough is put on learning how to drum correctly. I know a lot of guys who get names of rudiments mixed up. But they can read any piece of percussion music you put in front of them. Music is not written with rudiment names. Again, its not that different from students who learn the scale concept for all state auditions, and yet can't recognize that same group of notes in music. Is that particular format of a scale really that important, or is it more important that they recognize a common group of notes at a glance. Isn't it about the practical application more than it is about formulas and worksheets? If I'm putting together a snare line, I'd rather have 9 guys who can drum, but can't name me a single one of the PAS 40, than 9 guys who know their rudiments cold but can't get a double stroke roll to sound good.

Sort of playing a game with you here, but... to be consistent in your reasoning and non hypocritical, you must also be just as opposed to the naming of sticking patterns within drum set grooves as you are opposed to naming sticking patterns for the rudiments. Flam-Tap; Samba; Paradiddle; Mozambique; they are all names of sticking patterns. And if you say there are sticking variations in drum set grooves I will counter with there are variations in the rudiments (ie hybrids).

Edited November 6, 2011 by Stu

[actucker]

Sort of playing a game with you here, but... to be consistent in your reasoning and non hypocritical, you must also be just as opposed to the naming of sticking patterns within drum set grooves as you are opposed to naming sticking patterns for the rudiments. Flam-Tap; Samba; Paradiddle; Mozambique; they are all names of sticking patterns. And if you say there are sticking variations in drum set grooves I will counter with there are variations in the rudiments (ie hybrids).

If you want to really talk about how wrong it is to name a sticking pattern on drum set, and how that sells entire cultures short, we can have that conversation. There is no such thing as a "Samba groove" on drum set. There are only watered down patterns that a bunch of white folks wrote down to emulate actual samba which is in actuality a collection of rhythms played by several different people on instruments that (for the most part) don't exist on drumset. It can sound completely different depending upon how those rhythms are put together. Samba is a style, not a groove, or a particular set of variations on said groove. The same can be said for rock grooves, african grooves, salsa, swing etc.

So yeah, trying to name a particular combination of notes or stickings and call them by a particular groove name in most cases is not only pointless but incorrect.

[Stu]

If you want to really talk about how wrong it is to name a sticking pattern on drum set, and how that sells entire cultures short, we can have that conversation. There is no such thing as a "Samba groove" on drum set. There are only watered down patterns that a bunch of white folks wrote down to emulate actual samba which is in actuality a collection of rhythms played by several different people on instruments that (for the most part) don't exist on drumset. It can sound completely different depending upon how those rhythms are put together. Samba is a style, not a groove, or a particular set of variations on said groove. The same can be said for rock grooves, african grooves, salsa, swing etc.

So yeah, trying to name a particular combination of notes or stickings and call them by a particular groove name in most cases is not only pointless but incorrect.

You imply that the mere adaptation of various things deeply insults the culture in which it was derived. Which also means everything is insulting because nothing stays pure over the course of time; especially when cultures interact. To me, the adaptation of the samba to the drum set is something to be celebrated as a tribute to the culture in which it came; not blasted as a perversion or an insult to the culture. Also, your anger toward nomenclature and adaptation comes across quite well. For example, the condescending tone toward "a bunch of white folks" as you called them was quite revealing (and rather insulting at that). Thank you, at least, for being honest.

Edited November 6, 2011 by Stu

[actucker]

You imply that the mere adaptation of various things deeply insults the culture in which it was derived. Which also means everything is insulting because nothing stays pure over the course of time; especially when cultures interact. To me, the adaptation of the samba to the drum set is something to be celebrated as a tribute to the culture in which it came; not blasted as a perversion or an insult to the culture. Also, your anger toward nomenclature and adaptation comes across quite well. For example, the condescending tone toward "a bunch of white folks" as you called them was quite revealing (and rather insulting at that). Thank you, at least, for being honest.

There is no anger involved in my position, and if my poor attempt at humor came across as insulting, I apologize. That was not my intent. I sometimes forget that web boards are so impersonal.

You are, however, misinterpreting my point as a disdain for adaptation. I love that there are those interested in other cultures. I am one of those who is very interested in cultures outside my own. My issue is with the oversimplification of those cultures and the idea that you can sum it all up in one drum set groove. This is not the case. To stick with the style we're using as an example, there are entire books written on just the adaptation of Brazilian Samba rhythms and instruments for drum set. But how many students are ever encouraged by their teachers to seek those books out when they learn to play Samba? They just hand them a couple of written out grooves and call it good. How many of those students are ever encouraged to actually go listen to some real Samba? I know I wasn't until I was lucky enough to have a teacher who was very into world music and gave me a bunch of recordings.

I've seen the Tommy Igoe "Groove Essentials" poster all over the place. Its posted in almost every school I've ever taught at. But the fact is, most of those grooves don't even scratch the surface of the style of music they claim to represent. Some of them, as a matter of fact simply aren't correct, or even don't exist at all. Yet this is what our young drum set players are learning.

So no, I'm not angry, but I do think its a mistake to teach kids that a groove on a piece of paper can represent an entire style of music (whether it be Samba, Hip Hop, Funk, Disco, or Country). I also think its a little silly to teach kids that 40 sticking patterns and their names are the key to playing drums well. It doesn't matter what name you put on a sticking. Either you can play it, or you can't. To put it into context for this web board, none of the judges were at any point quizzing the Cavaliers on the names of the rudiments they were playing. They simply recognized that they drum well and rewarded them as such. You can be a great drummer and never learn the name of a single rudiment. You can't be a great drummer if you never learn that the silly sounding names of sticking patterns you learned in middle school are actually fragments of music which are infinitely variable. This is what is happening to a lot of young students, and it is why I think we're making a mistake by putting so much emphasis on rudiments in early percussion education.