Value of Pasic?

donv

Silver Member
Bookma,

There's no doubt that your argument is well thought out and I ususally am in agreement with what you write and contribute, but on this one, I don't think we'll ever agree. But that's OK.

She begins with re-defining rudiments to suit her forthcoming argument and then she shoots herself in the foot. If she wants to define rudiments to broaden the definition of drummer to now percussionists, fine. I happen to think that what instrument(s) you play defines who's a drummer and who's a percussionist rather then the practicing of rudiments. This is what she wrote:


"I would propose as a working definition a slight revision of Harr’s: A rudiment in percussion playing is a fundamental sticking pattern or skill set which will aid in developing a basic technique for musical performance on percussion instruments, specifically, the snare drum. This definition allows for a broader view of ourselves as percussionists rather than “drummers” while retaining the idea of a rudiment as a basic or fundamental skill. The revised definition also highlights that which must be the paramount concern to all percussion performers and educators – playing music."


Using a baseball comparison, this is what she wrote:


"The infield in baseball is also known as the "diamond" but I propose that from the first and third baselines perspective the diamond is really a square. In baseball the square is the basic shape so the first, second and third basemen are infielders rather then 1st, 2nd or 3rd basemen. This definition allows for a broader view of basemen. The revised definition also highlights that which must be the paramount concern to all baseball players and coaches -- playing baseball."


I don't see where her revised definition adds or changes anything of substance to the discussion of rudiments. But hey, let's give it to her, but then she goes on to say, "The 40 International Drum Rudiments, as they are published and disseminated presently, are mistakenly used or interpreted as a basic skill set or benchmark for all percussionists, regardless of personal goals or area of interest. And although those who are trained percussionists may intuitively know which rudiments are important to their particular area(s) of expertise or interest, having a list of 40 rudiments sanctioned by the professional organization of percussionists leads other educators (such as band directors) to think that these rudiments are all equally important to all students, and that mastery of each is essential to effective performance on percussion instruments. This is simply not the case. For almost every student, the study of rudiments as they are presently understood can be eliminated from the percussion curricula without any significant compromise in a student’s ability to become a competent, professional musician."


Well, what is it? Let's define rudiments as "fundamental skill sets" which are mistakenly used or interpreted as a "basic skill sets." Duh! But now, she makes her real point: Professional organizations lead other educators and band directors to think rudiments are all equally important to all students and mastery is essential to effective performance on percussion instruments. Wow, does she make a leap there or what? To begin with, it's one heck of an assumption on her part to think the un-named "professional organizations" have already accepted her revised definition to\for percussive instruments. But that's nothing compared to her characterizing educators, of which she is one, and directors as non-thinking zombies pulling off the lemmings trick of jumping off the cliff of "necessary for mastery and equally important." She makes the cherry picking of her statements necessary though by stating,

"The 40 International Drum Rudiments, as they are published and disseminated presently, are mistakenly used or interpreted as a basic skill set or benchmark for all percussionists, regardless of personal goals or area of interest."

She just pulls that one out of her backside and she doens't make any attempts to back the postion up with any objective considerations. Apparantly if she writes it, it must be true. I'm not going to go line for line through Franklin's thesis but you have an idea of how I read what she wrote.

On point, as far as being musical and the necessity of rudiments, we mostly agree. The rudiments themsleves are not some make or break point to being musical with music. As Ken points out though, the technical requirements that go hand in hand with some communities in music, Al jarreau, neccesitates learing the rudiments for 99 out of 100 drummers(or whatever) to be accepted into those communities for the opportunity to be musical with them.

Again, I don't think it makes much difference one way or the other how many rudiments there are because the root(s) to them doesn't change. How many there are is a non-issue. Also, I practice rudiments for what the practice does for me. My world isn't going to come to an end if I never play another pataflafla, but if I want to use them in some chops at 120 bpm, I can, and it feels good knowing I can.
 
Last edited:

Jeremy Bender

Platinum Member
I've always shyed away from PAS only because I don't consider myself to be a legit player. I didn't know they were still around after all these years. Learn something new every day I guess...
 

donv

Silver Member
If you look at quads, they are really just four stroke ruffs, esp when used into a downbeat. .
When you brought up quads Ken, it sparked a memory that had to do with Pasic and I found it last night.

From the Spring, 2009 issue of Traps Magazine article on Joe Morello's "Take Five" solo:

". . . legendary fast hands in measure 42, where he smoothly and quickly pulls off a four-stroke ruff on beat 3. Ex. 10 demonstrates this old-school rudiment. These days with slightly different notation, The Percussive Arts Society call this a single-stroke four. Whatever the name, Morello does is well."

Typical Pasic isn't it? Any rudimental drummer or versed reader recognizes a 4 stroke ruff when they hear it--as you've pointed out Ken. The non-rudimental drummers or non-readers recognize a quad when they hear it. As the magazine points out, "old-school" drumming, but Pasic goes after re-naming what is already a common lexicon to drummers. What does single-four stroke add(?) and this coming from a orgainization whose Scholarly Research Committee(s) chair is writing articles questioning the number of rudiments.

This is a lot like politics--"Let's not deal with things the way they are, let's deal with things in terms of how we think they should be regardless of relevance to the dialouge." Is this the epitome of organizational group think or what? Certainly supports Jeremy's perception that Pasic is a non-entity regardless of his opinion concerning his own legitimacy.
 
Top