I offer a challenge to the forum

blade123 said:
How so? Play a single stroke roll, now take your left hand out. You get rrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr
Click to expand...

Sorry, i'm with the other's here. As has been said, the single stroke roll is defined by the alternation of single hits with each hand, so it necessarily can't be a succession of notes with one hand. Under your conditions rrrrrrrr could be described as a double stroke roll with all the left hand doubles rested etc etc.

Ultimately these are trifling points, but you are exploring an interesting topic of how rudiments can be interpreted. It seems that many drummers fail to explore all the rudiments in terms of different time values and note interpretation. I recently saw a video from Gadd explaining one of his Aja fills as a ratamacue, but which was an entirely different note interpretation to that written on the Vic Firth collection. And it sounded great of course.
 
Me thinks Blade 123 just won't admit to losing his challenge and will continue to beat a dead horse even in defeat. There are 40 rudiments that I know of. Anything else as Wavelength has said are parts of rudiments, Maybe. One bounce of a basket ball does not constitute a "dribble" Many bounces does. You lost your challenge, admit it and try to come up with another. Or get in touch with the Percussive Arts Society and tell them you plan on re-writing all know drumming manuals. Next challenge please.
 
Well, blade123 clearly lost this one.

One side note. The original challenge was to write a piece that doesn't use any rudiments.

Quarter note played on the right hand on beat one. Quarter note played on the left hand of beat three. Rests on beat 2 and 4. There is no rudiment there.
 
mrchattr said:
Well, blade123 clearly lost this one.

One side note. The original challenge was to write a piece that doesn't use any rudiments.

Quarter note played on the right hand on beat one. Quarter note played on the left hand of beat three. Rests on beat 2 and 4. There is no rudiment there.
Click to expand...

Oh, and on the off chance that you try to say that is just a really slow single stroke roll (thus proving that you don't understand what rolls mean at all), how about this:

In 4/4: Quarter note played on the right hand of beat one. Rest on beats two and three. Quarter note played on the left hand on beat four. Rest on beats one, two, three and four of the second measure, and one and two of the third measure. Quarter note played on the right hand on beat three of the third measure. It's not a single stroke roll, because your note spacing isn't even, which is required for a single stroke roll. It also doesn't share any of the timing of other rudiments just slowed down over many measures.

I believe in another post, you said you would give someone $100 if they could do this. Get over here. You owe me.
 
The exhuberance of youth. You have to love it, even if the theory is wrong. Back to the drawing board young man.
 
youenjoy00myself said:
I disagree. Rudiments do NOT equal notes. If I had to name an equivalent for an instrument whose main purpose is to play definite pitch then I would say scales and chords.
Click to expand...
I like this definition better than mine. Anything you play (excluding pure rests) is at least part of a rudiment.
 
blade123 said:
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.
Click to expand...

a drum part that does not contain a rudiment, a modified rudiment, or a combination of rudiments (or rests only, obviously).

There! I did it! What do I win?
 
First off, rudiments are not at all like musicial notes. Someone looking at a piano for the first time would have to be told where middle C is, and what scale is based on that note, and what modes and chords are based upon that scale. Without knowing any of that you could not functionally play the piano. I realize that's arguable but it should be obvious what I mean. A drum is not a piano or a trumpet.
Someone looking at a drum for the first time would simply have to hit the drum. So there's that.
Secondly, if, as the argument seems to be going, everything a drummer plays is a rudiment, whether or not that drummer has any knowledge of rudiments, then why protest? Roy Haynes has proudly said that he doesn't know one rudiment from another, and I don't see where that's held him back.
Really, the question is like asking someone to come up with any object that isn't made up of molecules. What was being played on drums existed before the organization of rudiments. It just took someone to sit down and do the organizing and to give those resulting organized systems their names, and now we have the rudiments.
Anyway that's my story and I'm sticking to it.
 
jay norem said:
First off, rudiments are not at all like musicial notes. Someone looking at a piano for the first time would have to be told where middle C is, and what scale is based on that note, and what modes and chords are based upon that scale. Without knowing any of that you could not functionally play the piano. I realize that's arguable but it should be obvious what I mean. A drum is not a piano or a trumpet.
Someone looking at a drum for the first time would simply have to hit the drum. So there's that.
Secondly, if, as the argument seems to be going, everything a drummer plays is a rudiment, whether or not that drummer has any knowledge of rudiments, then why protest? Roy Haynes has proudly said that he doesn't know one rudiment from another, and I don't see where that's held him back.
Really, the question is like asking someone to come up with any object that isn't made up of molecules. What was being played on drums existed before the organization of rudiments. It just took someone to sit down and do the organizing and to give those resulting organized systems their names, and now we have the rudiments.
Anyway that's my story and I'm sticking to it.
Click to expand...

Well, not to stick a spanner in your theory or anything, but there have been trumpeters ( Chet Baker ) and pianists ( Jamie Cullum ) who also didn't know /or care to know what a C maj scale was.

Chet Baker's band was always guessing what key he was in ...throughout his playing career.
 
blade123 said:
I like this definition better than mine. Anything you play (excluding pure rests) is at least part of a rudiment.
Click to expand...

Yes...anything you play is at least a part of a rudiment...meaning that there are things that you play that are only parts of rudiments, and thus not rudiments.

Nice job admitting that you were incorrect, even if it was in a round about way. (Edit: I reread this, and it seemed harsh. I mean it only as a joke though.)
 
I was hoping to see some videos of people playing without rudiments...come on... I'm still going to when I get that s*it (stuff) set up.



As for Roy Haynes, I've taken about 50% of what he says to be total BS or cocky bravado. He's from Boston and grew up with Alan Dawson - I guarantee he knows some rudiments. It's just fun to say you don't...
 
blade123 said:
That's exactly my point. I think you're looking waaaaaay too deep into what I'm trying to say. Rudiments=drumming.
"I'm going to go practice (drumming)" means "I'm going to practice rudiments".
Click to expand...

I just wanna put my oar in.
In theory you might be right, at least reagarding some essential parts I think. Practicing rudiments, practicing with Stick Control is very helpful to develop the technical issues and to give the overview. The thing is that many drummers get groovy, play rolls and complex soli etc. without even knowing about a list of rudiments.

So either you play them really consciously or not. I view rudiments as something which is not sacred or a law. It`s just another obvious thing, a tool...but nothing which makes playing drums impossible if you havn`t practiced tham over and over again.

And there`s my next point. Who would say "Oh, look, my baby plays a rudiment" when the baby hits the drums somehow? Well, when you`re going practicing you certainly go for more than playing rudiments. Techincally yes, psychologically and in a social way no. Playing drums is developing a personality and even if you want to get extra-conscious about rudiments in the end you`ll just feel joy and express yourself without planning what rudiment you wanna play next.
I think we shouldn`t misunderstand the meaning of rudiments. Technically everything you play might at least be a part of a rudiments. But it`s like someone who patents the ABC and then says that everything you say is at least part of it...oh yes, and this ABC has to be practiced hard.

Of course it is practiced hard to learn to speak a language but not concious most of the time. Gaining experience does not mean playing rudiments consciously. A great orator does not sit at home and over and over says "ABCDEFG....", he will apply that to express himself. That`s what we have to learn if we wanna learn more about rudiments: Adaptation. I think that`s more important than knowing that everything is at least part of a rudiment.

Might be a bit off-topic but these are just my two cents...

Karl
 
I try very hard to integrate the rudiments into my teaching from the beginning, so that students get an idea of how they can be used practically around the kit, rather than just as empty technical exercises. The other day, one of my kids was playing a groove with ghosts notes and he said, hey that's kind of like doing a flam. It's nice to know it's working.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top