Is this a good drum book?

brentcn

Platinum Member
It’s pretty dated material. You’ll get lots of practice playing paradiddles, but it there’s two issues: first, it doesn’t show you how to incorporate the other paradiddle rudiments, and second, it does give you any practice or methods that show you how to use them musically or improvise your own combinations.

Gary Chaffees technique patterns, Buddy Rich’s Rudiment book, and Rudimental
Logic, are all much more worthy of your time.

Also, the technique necessary to play paradiddles well is something that’s best left to a private lesson, and really can’t be found in a book.
 

Odd-Arne Oseberg

Platinum Member
Used in the right way, like any classic it's gold.

Many of these books are like listening and really transcribing just a few of your most favourite albums. If you take it as far as you can you don't need much more.

The etude format is nice as it gives you a way to start, a limitation to take up to it's full potential in as many ways as you'd like.

I guess this falls somewhere between Stone and Wilcoxon, though it's focused around one rudiment.

It's not a beginner book, mostly because it would drive them nuts and they wouldn't be able to see the forest.

An experienced player would get what they wanted out of it fast, a beginner would need help.

As a teacher I wouldn't need much of it, but taking a few things as a package combined with other things,. sure.

As a teacher or student of methodology when I go through books like this I do it fast. Really I'm only looking for a new idea or a way to present someting in a new way.

As a student and player myself I like it because I can use this creatively right away. Just look at the first exercise. Three basic things for two bars each. It's a good phrasing idea and when combined with whatever facility and vocabulary you already have to put on top of it you can spend hours with it. Build a whole solo.
 
Last edited:

brentcn

Platinum Member
Did you look through it at all? The first page I open to are double paradiddles and paradiddle-diddles
Yes I did. Those are displaced single and double paradiddles -- the same rudiment, but offset by a few notes.
 

Brian

Gold Member
Yes I did. Those are displaced single and double paradiddles -- the same rudiment, but offset by a few notes.
A double paradiddle isn't a paradiddle, otherwise it wouldn't be a separate rudiment. I guess being correct or admitting wrong isn't that important to you. Technically, a U and W are the same letter, too.
 

Midnite Zephyr

Platinum Member
Yeah, I've had this book siting in my files. I haven't done much with it. Heck, I can barely do a regular paradidle. I just thought I would share it with you all to "borrow".
 

brentcn

Platinum Member
A double paradiddle isn't a paradiddle, otherwise it wouldn't be a separate rudiment.
I'm interpreting the exercises as displaced paradiddles in the first few, and displaced double paradiddles later. I don't think you're "wrong", but I feel my description is more correct. When switching from one inversion of a paradiddle to the next, you'll play a combination that is "technically" a paradiddle-diddle, or some other combination of notes. So what?

I guess being correct or admitting wrong isn't that important to you. Technically, a U and W are the same letter, too.
Why did you feel you needed to write this? Can't we discuss this and leave out the ad hominem attacks?
 
Top