Deliberate Practice - Methodology and Practice Skills

I want to say Im not against the bounce, I just don´t use it with this book, and perfectly understand where you are aiming!
It´s all cool. Im very open...

Best regards Rhumba!
 
Nice playing Todd!

Thanks!

It might be what you say OR NOT for several reasons (I rather not discuss them).

Sure-- just too many times I've tried to play exactly what's written, only to finally realize-- oh, this is what he wants, he just doesn't know how to write it! Then you hear a traditional rudimental guy do it, and it's basically that. But those parts work the way you played them of course.

Beyond that, I enjoyed your version! I finished this book (did it all on my own) when I was 15 y.o. (1973) and I don´t practice these type of things at all (even doing other excersises on pad) only play it with students eventually.

I just learned it 15 minutes ago, lol! I don't like Wilcoxon that much generally-- like that one there's a space of ~10 bpm where this solo sounds like anything-- it's impossible/ridiculous to go much faster, and the slow stuff sounds ridiculous if you go slower. I would rather play Haskell Harr.
 
@rhumbagirl Johnathan already answered correctly to you, in any case your "tab/numerical" deduction was correct too.

Regarding the tempo, since you asked, I play it for you at 1/4 note = 60bpm (UPDATED to 70 bpm) but you can play it faster or slower, I don´t think it is too important as long as the subdivision of the whole piece is all fine and uniform ...

Good luck!

Doing version A) (Measure 9 of Wilcoxon´s Solo 128) (coming!)

Yeah, half the traditional guys drop the left hand in after the RH accent-- they rarely leave a full 16th note of space like you're doing-- and like I do, normally-- even when it's clearly indicated.

Here's Rick Dior playing it a lot faster, with a 16th triplet pulsation-- only way to do it at that speed:


There are a ton of other videos with people doing all kinds of things, of course...
 
I may as well throw my full performance into this mix. This is the same recording as from the podcast episode:

I gotta say...you're losing me at measure 9 to 10. No matter how many times I listen to it and count along, from measure 10 on, I'm somewhere else with regards to the original 2/4 pulse. If that's freedom of interpretation, I'm not used to that much of it, sorry.
 
I gotta say...you're losing me at measure 9 to 10. No matter how many times I listen to it and count along, from measure 10 on, I'm somewhere else with regards to the original 2/4 pulse. If that's freedom of interpretation, I'm not used to that much of it, sorry.
I'm with you there. I did listen to it at 0.5x and it sounds and looks like the 10 stroke is started at the 'e' of (1), but with the intention to execute 3 notes per sixteenth with the 10th note ending on (2), for an even sounding 10 stroke roll. However, there's enough space inserted between note 9 and 10 that it looks like a recommitment to either a 64th interpretation (which has a 16th note rest between 9 and 10) or Todd's sixtuplet interpretation (which has triplet 16th note rest between 9 and 10).

But uncommitting at note 9 has the effect of note 9 seeming to be on beat (2), hence screwing with the pulse and interpretation.

That's my take and I'm sticking to it.

Code:
   10 stroke   10 stroke
   ----------  ----------
            1           1
   1234567890  1234567890
>          >>          >>
R..llrrllrrLR..llrrllrrLR
1..e..&..a..2..e..&..a..1

The above uncommitted at note 9:
>          > >          > >
R..llrrllrrL.R..llrrllrrL.R
1..e..&..a..2..e..&..a..1

Todd's sixtuplet interpretation:
>         > >         > >
R.llrrllrrL.R.llrrllrrL.R
1..e..&..a..2..e..&..a..1

I personally feel the intended interpretation is 64th notes (see my code entry earlier) because there are explicit 64th note rolls at bars 18, 20, and 23.

EDIT: My experience with the first notation above is that it's executable at moderate tempos but not at up tempos. The sixtuplet interpretation should work really well for up tempos.
 
Last edited:
I had another listen to my own performance and I’m pretty satisfied with my interpretation. The pulse is still there, and it’s in line with the traditional approach to crushed rolls, where there is a perceptible delay in the accent as the roll “doesn’t quite fit”.

John Wooten talks about it in his Rudimental videos:

I guess there is always interpretation LOL.

The notation for bar 9 does explicitly state a 16th note rest at beat 1 and a 16th note rest leading to beat 2 (accented), with the 10 stroke roll between written with the sticking.
 
I guess there is always interpretation LOL.

The notation for bar 9 does explicitly state a 16th note rest at beat 1 and a 16th note rest leading to beat 2 (accented), with the 10 stroke roll between written with the sticking.

1716824429900.png

I'm not seeing what you're describing there-- there are no rests at all, the 10 stroke roll includes the four double strokes and the accented notes at the beginning and end-- those are the 10 strokes.

I personally feel the intended interpretation is 64th notes (see my code entry earlier) because there are explicit 64th note rolls at bars 18, 20, and 23.

That's the thing, what's explicitly notated is not always what you play-- the notation can be misleading with this school and era of stuff.
 
Ok I got the terminology a bit wrong, but it's staring us in the face. There's a 16th note 'value' before beat 2.

I misspoke on the 16th note 'value' at beat 1.

So one could interpret all the notes from beat 1 to and including the 'a' as the 10 stroke roll. But isn't it customary to see a 10 stroke as eight 32nds followed by a 16th and then the ending note (ie theres space between notes 9 and 10), in which case the 10 stroke doesn't start on beat 1 but at the doubles?
 
So one could interpret all the notes from beat 1 to and including the 'a' as the 10 stroke roll. But isn't it customary to see a 10 stroke as eight 32nds followed by a 16th and then the ending note (ie theres space between notes 9 and 10), in which case the 10 stroke doesn't start on beat 1 but at the doubles?

Even-numbered roll definitions are kind of squishy. It seems to mean a roll with four doubles and two accents-- one at the beginning/one at the end, or or two at the beginning, two at the end-- except the first two will also have a release at the end. It happens in all those forms. You'd think that "RUDIMENTAL" means , it really doesn't, it's a squishy form of drumming traditionally.

To me a triplet pulsation with accents at the beg/end is sort of its native form, like in Three Camps.
 
I had another listen to my own performance and I’m pretty satisfied with my interpretation. The pulse is still there, and it’s in line with the traditional approach to crushed rolls, where there is a perceptible delay in the accent as the roll “doesn’t quite fit”.

John Wooten talks about it in his Rudimental videos:

I'm sorry, mr. Curtis, I might be breaking some unwritten rule here in commenting on your performance, and apologies if this is the case, but at bar 10 you are off the pulse.

I've listened to Todds rendition, aswell as mr. Dior's and maybe one needs to adjust one's placement of the one ever so slightly (if at all) to go with them, but with your version after bar 10 I need to ditch my one and go find yours again.

I might not be at your level of snare drum virtuosity, but I know time. And you're off the 2/4 pulse after that section.
 
View attachment 146801

I'm not seeing what you're describing there-- there are no rests at all, the 10 stroke roll includes the four double strokes and the accented notes at the beginning and end-- those are the 10 strokes.



That's the thing, what's explicitly notated is not always what you play-- the notation can be misleading with this school and era of stuff.

they are actually inverted 10 stroke rolls, which is what is confusing....the dotted 8th note is stroke 1, the little 16ths are strokes 23/45/67/89 and the single 16th is stroke 10; 2 inverted 10 stroke rolls next to each other...the infered space between the beat 1 dotted 8th, and the first 16th does imply a little space to give "jump" feel, which is common in this older style of writing and playing, but it is not always observed in modern renditions.

When I have my students do these types of solos for Solo and Ensemble competitions, depending on the age of the judge, they can sometimes get busted for not interpreting that space correctly. Older judges (60+) will tend to harp on that more than younger judges


I'm sorry, mr. Curtis, I might be breaking some unwritten rule here in commenting on your performance, and apologies if this is the case, but at bar 10 you are off the pulse.

I've listened to Todds rendition, aswell as mr. Dior's and maybe one needs to adjust one's placement of the one ever so slightly (if at all) to go with them, but with your version after bar 10 I need to ditch my one and go find yours again.

I might not be at your level of snare drum virtuosity, but I know time. And you're off the 2/4 pulse after that section.

it has nothing to do with elite drumming or enhanced skills, there is a steady 2/4 pulse through @Jonathan Curtis 's version. After reading your first reaction, I wondered the same thing, I went back and listened at least 3 times through, and could not find anywhere that the beat one got altered. I even used the "tap" feature on my met was able to discern a steady pulse the whole time. I think the composition of the solo has the intention to blur where hte beat one is in places, but it - at least to me - deos not get lost or go away.

Not trying to cause controversy, but just lending my ears interp to the mix....
 
they are actually inverted 10 stroke rolls, which is what is confusing....the dotted 8th note is stroke 1, the little 16ths are strokes 23/45/67/89 and the single 16th is stroke 10; 2 inverted 10 stroke rolls next to each other...

Never heard any terminology one way the other in the field-- none of my corps instructors ever referred to a 10 stroke roll. We did play them, but I got the term a lot later from books.

the infered space between the beat 1 dotted 8th, and the first 16th does imply a little space to give "jump" feel, which is common in this older style of writing and playing, but it is not always observed in modern renditions.

I thought it was the other way around, that the old/casual/traditional guys weren't real meticulous about the timing of the left after the tap, like:


Compared to:


Despite the attire, that's a more modern way to play it, to me. We had to be trained to lift the left like that on tap rolls, to get a correct 16th or triplet spacing between the tap and the first double.

When I have my students do these types of solos for Solo and Ensemble competitions, depending on the age of the judge, they can sometimes get busted for not interpreting that space correctly. Older judges (60+) will tend to harp on that more than younger judges

Can't speak for the judges and how somebody arrives at one correct interpretation-- I think whatever interpretation somebody does should be deliberate.
 
I just cannot agree.

Listen...all of you guys, you, Alex, Todd and Jonathan, (and others like DcRigger, Griener and that guy from Switzerland, sorry I forgot your name just now) are just about the most knowledgeable fellas regularly posting here on this site. So I absolutely acknowledge your authority when it comes to the instrument.

Now...if you've got on this thread, two other versions by wildly differing players...one by ToddBishop and one by Rick Dior...and both of these players manage to keep the pulse just where it's supposed to be, it continues to be informative and educational.

But in this case, it's just a no for me.... I know time can be flexible and interpretative, and I thought I knew how to adapt to it. Jonathan's version of that solo around bar 9-10 is not that, I'll just say it right out...he just flubbs it there. I don't care...put it on a DAW or in Transcribe or something...it's just not correct.

and to reiterate, that is fine. I am not trying to tell you that you at hearing it wrong for sure, and that is also not me making a judgment on your abilities or expertise!! You are probably better at a lot of drumming things than I am...that is the magic of this activity...we are all at different points in the journey, and none of them are wrong!
 
I just cannot agree.

Listen...all of you guys, you, Alex, Todd and Jonathan, (and others like DcRigger, Griener and that guy from Switzerland, sorry I forgot your name just now) are just about the most knowledgeable fellas regularly posting here on this site. So I absolutely acknowledge your authority when it comes to the instrument.

Now...if you've got on this thread, two other versions by wildly differing players...one by ToddBishop and one by Rick Dior...and both of these players manage to keep the pulse just where it's supposed to be, it continues to be informative and educational.

But in this case, it's just a no for me.... I know time can be flexible and interpretative, and I thought I knew how to adapt to it. Jonathan's version of that solo around bar 9-10 is not that, I'll just say it right out...he just flubbs it there. I don't care...put it on a DAW or in Transcribe or something...it's just not correct.

Just to throw it in there, on Wooton's video above the time flexes-- those are very long &s on those 7 stroke rolls. I don't have an ear for that particular kind of time, but other things are done...
 
Never heard any terminology one way the other in the field-- none of my corps instructors ever referred to a 10 stroke roll. We did play them, but I got the term a lot later from books.

same...I did not really start seeing them used until I started having kids go to S&E, it was one of the required rudiments for them to play individually. Ian any of my actual music, 10 stroke (and 6 stroke for that matter ) rolls were usually written "inside" of a bigger picture roll groove/passage, but not identified as they are in the Wilcoxin books. But ince I saw them in those situations, I could identify them quicker in musical situations, even if their actual identification didn't aid in the execution.


I thought it was the other way around, that the old/casual/traditional guys weren't real meticulous about the timing of the left after the tap, like:


Compared to:


Despite the attire, that's a more modern way to play it, to me. We had to be trained to lift the left like that on tap rolls, to get a correct 16th or triplet spacing between the tap and the first double.

to my ears, the modern style of playing (meaning 1995-on) has things running more together. Like, everything running evenly on the 16th note or 8th note triplet pulse. Not a lot of "dotted note into a broken end rhythm" like you see in older Pratt, Wilcoxin etc....all of my buds joke about that is why you don't hear ratamacues, flamacues and single, or double drag taps ion their "pure form"

And honestly, in a lot of the modern writing, things go by so fast that it can all really be broken down into the 4 diddle rudiments, flam accents, and their many alterations, and tap roll passages. Most show books still have their "long roll for ~30 seconds" show off sections; also a lot of 3 and 4 stroke fast passages, and fast alternated passages. I notice all of this the most when I have kids do stuff out of the Pratt book. Those rudimental solos have a much diffefent feel than the "Bluecoats 2023 snare book"

Can't speak for the judges and how somebody arrives at one correct interpretation-- I think whatever interpretation somebody does should be deliberate.

true, and that is why I have my students play the older solos with the older style feel...I guess you would call it closer to the fife and drum "Scottish" stuff. I don't have them learn to what we thing the judges will say. It also seems like the younger judges recognize and reward for both styles, while the older judges will instantly downgrade someone doing a solo written after 1990....again, just my local experience
 
I have to run, just wanted to mention:

to my ears, the modern style of playing (meaning 1995-on)

Lol I was thinking early 70s-- to me modern begins with Fred Sanford and Bob Kalkoffen. A more scientific approach to playing style and standards, and a more artistic approach to writing. This more traditional stuff has always been alien to me.
 
Back
Top