Many of you don't seem to understand what I mean when I say "you can't play something that's not a rudiment".
Here is my challenge: I challenge you to write out a drum part that does not contain a rudiment, a modified rudiment, or a combination of rudiments (or rests only, obviously).
I dare you to do it.
It's a bit of trick proposition, isn't it. You could probably identify any grouping of notes as a rudiment (ie; a quick RL could be interpreted as a portion of a single stroke roll, or you could call a slightly non-precise kick-cymbal hit a flam.)
If your guideline is the written notation of rudiments as played on one drum - example: a single stroke roll must be
at least RLRL, a triplet is indeed RLR, but RL is fair game as long as not played in quick enough succession to be a flam - then it's perfectly easy to contruct a drum part or a whole song without specific rudiments, and
with fills.
Part of the conundrum seems to be that drum parts are necessarily complicated, and therefore must contain rudiments, intentional or otherwise. I suppose those kind of parts do. But overlooked is the fact that the vast majority of drum parts are pretty straight ahead. While they undoubtedly also contain rudiments, probably at least a single stroke roll in the form of a fill, it would be no problem to simply those fills and play a perfectly correct part without a rudiment. You also have to accept that a fill is not necessarily a full measure (although now that I think about it, if you want fills to last a full measure, that's no problem either!)
But if you stretch the concept -
a lot - and suggest that, regardless of tempo,
any sticking of RL or LR constitutes a flam... or that RL on the snare going into a right hand crash constitutes a triplet (RLR)... or that 2 kicks and a snare constitute a drag... I suppose you could pretend those are rudiments, even though playing those parts could never be interpreted that way by anyone who's expecting to hear rudiments. It wouldn't hold up in a court of law, either.
Bermuda