by mark wessels
Rudimental Ramblings 3: The “Essential” Essential Rudiments?
May 21, 2010 2:08 pm in Concert, Drumset, Marching by mark wessels
In my previous two Rudimental Ramblings posts, we talked about “What are rudiments anyway?” – an attempt to define what the term “rudiments” really means – and “Basic Strokes” – some of the fundamental strokes that comprise the foundation to rudimental vocabulary. Of course, there wasn’t any consensus on either topic. I didn’t really expect any. Opening this particular can ‘o worms is like asking “which is better – traditional or matched?”.
My guess is that there will always be widely differing opinions on any subject regarding drumming technique – especially if your background is marching, orchestral or drumset. But that doesn’t mean we can’t discuss it… After all, this isn’t a Tea Party meeting – there can be more than one successful viewpoint!
So, let’s continue. In this article, I’d like to delve into what is “Essential Rudimental Vocabulary” – and what order do you teach the rudiments to young students?
THE “ESSENTIAL” ESSENTIALS?
One of the biggest problems I’ve stated all along is that there are simply too many “Essential Rudiments”. It seems that back-in-the-day, drummers and band directors alike could wrap their heads around 13 – and some could even be persuaded to expand to 26 (though, truthfully I’d bet that most band directors didn’t require the second set of 13. Probably because 2 sided copiers didn’t exist in those days – and most drummers couldn’t keep up with more than 1 piece of paper).
My contention is that if we could make it simple, more people would adopt the idea that learning the rudiments is a necessary part of learning to play ANY percussion instrument. Having 5 or 6 basic strokes with a list of 10 “essential rudimental vocabulary” could lay a great foundation… the rest is icing on the cake.
Incidentally, I’m certainly not the first to suggest this. Even the PAS “international drum rudiment committee” had a list of 7 Essential with a suggested order of instruction:
By and large, I think the list is reasonable. Had they stopped there and ONLY published that list – or at least titled the other 33 “Extended Rudimental Vocabulary” (with the ability to extend it easily with other hybrids), we would be much better off.
Here’s a few of my personal views on the “Essential” list:
First and foremost, I disagree with the statement that all rudiments should be practiced open-close-open. At best, this is an intermediate skill – only to be pursued after the fundamentals of the rudiment are achieved. Besides, do you really want to teach a beginning drummer to rush? Better that you work on a stairstep model of working with a metronome. When putting together the Vic Firth Rudiment project – that’s how I decided to present it – a goal oriented method of practicing the rudiments.
They also give the option of practicing at “an even, moderate march tempo”. That’s crazy. Ultimately you need to be able to control the rudiments at all tempi, don’t you?
Sorry. I digress. Here’s my list:
1. Single Stroke Roll
I prefer to call this “Alternating Single Strokes” – especially to young students. Unarguably the most important rudiment – whether you play a rudimental snare drum, a keyboard instrument, timpani, congas or drumset. Makes you wonder why it wasn’t included on the original 13… what were they thinking?
2. Double Stroke Roll
I start young kids on “Double Strokes” after good rebound strokes are taught. But aren’t double strokes essentially 2 single strokes? Technically, yes – but you’ve never taught a beginner if you think that they can automatically play quick, relaxed double strokes once they learn single strokes. Play a double stroke “roll” on a pillow and tell me you are using the same technique as you do when you play singles.
The difficulty of the double stroke roll is that it’s actually 2 techniques: the double STROKE and the double BOUNCE – so I treat it as 2 separate ‘rudiments’ (at least initially). I believe that the double bounce roll is a hybrid of the multiple bounce roll (same two-for-one technique… different amount of pressure on the fulcrum). Working on double strokes with a metronome, gradually pushing the tempo faster over time worked for me. At the point where the student can play double strokes as fast as a slow double bounce, then the technique switches. Eventually those two techniques are “blended” – but that’s an intermediate skill at best.
3. Single Paradiddle
Again, I treat this as 2 ‘rudiments’… First, as a combination of singles and doubles – Second, as a combination of down, up, tap strokes.
Why as a combination of singles and doubles (a non-accented paradiddle)? Basically, this is an intro into the world of “stick control” – the goal being to make all strokes sound the same. I doubt that many would argue that it’s a necessary skill when playing keyboard, timpani or drumset.. or any place where double strokes are necessary when moving around multiple surfaces.
In my view, the “accented paradiddle” is only essential because it requires mastery of 3 basic strokes: Down (controlled), up and tap. Accented alternated triplets would probably be an even better rudiment if you really think about it…
4. Multiple Bounce
The importance of this one goes without saying to me – the technique of making “one stroke = multiple sounds” is different than any other that I can think of. I’ve heard arguments that this is the one rudiment that should be played “soft-loud-soft” rather than “slow-fast-slow” and that doesn’t make any sense to me. Working on it at a very slow tempo exposes weaknesses in the sound and sustain of the bounce from hand to hand… Like the Single Stroke Roll – it only begins to sound like a roll when you’ve successfully worked up the tempo over time.
5. Five Stroke Roll
To me, the necessary function of the 5 stroke roll is that you’re combining relaxed bounces with the slight pressure of the downstroke accent – so I do believe this is an essential rudiment. You could easily substitute any other roll rudiment and achieve the same result.
The larger question is “how do you teach the 5 stroke roll”? Personally, I’ve always taught both… 2 double strokes followed by an accent and 2 multiple bounces followed by an accent. Again, starting very slowly – in duple time. Always with a 2 height approach, stressing the release of pressure after the accent. Eventually using double bounces instead of double strokes. The triplet version is taught later (another essential skill: the tap-roll).
6. Flam
Many arguments have been made that this is just a combination of soft and loud strokes – not really to be included on a list of “essential rudiments”. I beg to differ. Mainly because I’ve seen so many students have problems with ALL the other flam rudiments because they never really mastered the foundation of playing perfect flams with correct spacing between grace notes and primary strokes. It’s not just the spacing that’s important – it’s also the relaxation of the grace note (whether played as an upstroke or a tap).
Can we stop there?
As a list of ‘bare essentials’, you probably could. Is a drag really the same as a 5 stroke roll without one of the bounces? Is a Flam Tap really the same as a flam on a double stroke? If you can play a paradiddle and a flam, can you play a flam paradiddle? Technically speaking, yes – but in my experience, there are a few essential rudiments that can help open the door to the hundreds of other hybrids, so I’d add a few more:
7: Flam Accent
A representative of the “downstroked flam rudiments”. In my experience, adding a flam to any alternated accent pattern is a challenge to young students at first. Something about playing a flam, then following with a tap on the opposite hand seems to throw them for a loop. Working on the Flam Accent (or Flam Paradiddle) slowly, one stroke at a time, opens the door to all the other downstroked flam rudiments.
8: Flam Tap
A representative of the “rebound flam rudiments”. For whatever reason, after teaching control on flams, getting my students to relax on the primary stroke of the flam in order to let the stick rebound was difficult. So much of intermediate-advanced drumming requires that skill, so I include it on my essentials list. Other rebound rudiments? Swiss Army Triplets – and any of the “Cheese” hybrids all the kids love so much! Beyond rudimental drumming, if you can’t play rebound rudiments, forget about playing ANY funk or latin grooves on the drumset.
9: Drag
My students over 20+ years of teaching had to be taught that a drag is NOT a ‘bounced flam’. Maybe it’s how it looks on paper? I don’t know – but because it’s so important to almost all drums (rudimental, orchestral, drumset), I think it’s absolutely necessary so I wouldn’t push it to the “Extended Rudimental Vocabulary” list.
10: Single Drag
I could probably be talked out of this being “essential” – except that (in triplet form), the single drag teaches the important concept of controlling a bounce immediately following an accent. All the drag rudiments require this skill. And 10 makes a nice round number, don’t you think?
There it is. My personal Top Ten list.
What about an “inverted/whip” stroke rudiment? I just couldn’t justify an inverted flam tap, flamacue or flam paradiddle-diddle as an essential. What about the single stroke four (aka: the 4 stroke ruff)? The six stroke roll? It’s a slippery slope, my friend. Where do you stop?
I’ll be interested in your feedback – not only about what should or should not be on the list, but what order you teach the rudiments.
Who’s going to throw the first stone?
Hey Mark, I posted this before unsuccessfully, here goes my second attempt (part of it is borrowed from another rambling somewhere):
Rudiments used to be the building blocks or alphabet of all snare drum literature. Music consisted of those 13 rudiments played in a given order. It was very simple, like a piano player learning the 7 notes in the key of C and only ever playing those seven notes individually in some order. The 13 became the 26, and then as I’ve been told Jay Wannamaker and his drum corps friends pushed 40 through the PAS crew.
These days rudimental literature borrows bits and pieces of rudiments and throws them around in millions of combinations so their purpose has totally changed. It’s funny that in this day and age if all you knew were the forty rudiments you’d have lots of repetitive stuff and also massive gaps in what you need to be able to play to survive. In fact, if you do some ritual where you just play through the 40 rudiments within some tempo structure you’ll still be left with grossly incomplete hand technique (I agree with you Mark!).
Then there’s the rudiment family concept which I find completely useless. For example, the flam family. If you narrow it down to the flam and get good at it does that mean you can also handle flam accents? No. Flam taps? No. Inverted flam taps? No. All of those require completely different hand motions and have nothing in common except that there happens to be an accented note with a grace note tied to it in there.
So what’s my take on what works? It’s all about the necessary hand motions. I’ve narrowed it down to 12 rudiments that when played at all tempos will result in “complete” hands that have all of the facility pre-programmed to play anything and everything. Rather than burden people with a whopping list of 40 rudiments and then hundreds of hybrids (some of which are way more important/necessary than the rudiments in the 40), why not make it the 12 that allow you to play everything else? After all, rudiments are no longer the simple boiled down vocabulary to be strung together, but a means to an end–great hands that can plan anything.
What are they? Let me see, in no particular order:
1 single stroke roll
2 double stroke roll
3 triple stroke roll
4 buzz roll
5 paradiddle
6 six stroke roll
7 flam
8 flam accent
9 flam tap
10 inverted flam tap
11 drag
12 dragadiddle
I hate that the only accented diddle (sandwiched by low taps) is the “dragadiddle” -I wish it was a “drag accent” like the flam accent. I may go on a crusade for the 12. Of course, there may be something new in the works that deals with all this…
So, revamping the 40–who’s with me?! What do you guys think of my list of 12? Is anything missing? (Remember, I’m talking hand motions and not vocabulary.)
Hey Mark, The Modern Drummer magazine was a series on my choice “Top Ten” rudiments before the “Chop Builders” column kicked in. I’ve since expanded it to twelve. I think when these 12 are played slow-fast-slow they cover every hand motion you’ll ever need to play anything.
From what I’ve interpreted, rudiments used to be the building blocks or alphabet of all snare drum literature. Music consisted of those 13 rudiments played in a given order. It was very simple, like a piano player learning the 7 notes in the key of C and only ever playing those seven notes individually in a given order. The 13 became the 26, and then as I’ve been told Jay Wannamaker and his drum corps friends pushed 40 through the PAS crew. Historians please chime in! (And I’m going to do some research on the link Mark left.)
These days rudimental literature borrows bits and pieces of rudiments and throws them around in millions of combinations so their purpose has totally changed. It’s funny that in this day and age if all you knew were the forty rudiments you’d have lots of repetitive stuff and also massive gaps in what you need to be able to play to survive. In fact, if you do some ritual where you just play through the 40 rudiments within some tempo structure you’ll still be left with incomplete hand technique.
Then there’s the rudiment family concept which I find completely useless. For example, the flam family. If you narrow it down to the flam and get good at it does that mean you can also handle flam accents? No. Flam taps? No. Inverted flam taps? No. All of those require completely different hand motions and have nothing in common except that there happens to be an accented note with a grace note tied to it in there.
So what’s my take on what works? It’s all about the necessary hand motions. I’m still studying, but so far I’ve narrowed it down to 12 rudiments that when played at all tempos will result in “complete” hands that have all of the facility pre-programmed to play anything and everything. Rather than burden people with a whopping list of 40 rudiments and then hundreds of hybrids (some of which are way more important/necessary than the rudiments in the 40), why not make it the 12 that allow you to play everything else? After all, rudiments are no longer the simple boiled down vocabulary to be strung together, but a means to an end–great hands that can play anything.
What are they? Let me see, in no particular order:
1 single stroke roll
2 double stroke roll
3 triple stroke roll
4 buzz roll
5 paradiddle
6 six stroke roll
7 flam
8 flam accent
9 flam tap
10 inverted flam tap
11 drag
12 dragadiddle
I hate that the only accented diddle (sandwiched by low taps) in the 40 is the “dragadiddle” -I wish it was a “drag accent” like the flam accent. I may go on a crusade for the 12 and the “drag accent”. Of course, there may be something new in the works that deals with all this…
So what do you guys think? Is a revision of the 40 long over due? (I vote yes.)
I think something as simple as the paradiddle variations would suffice. There are tons of immediate applications to drum set, and you simply need to add a flam for a more rudimental application.
@Bill – I think I’ve always played the Purdie shuffle with that sticking, but I think that’s because I worked on Garibaldi type stuff for so long that dropping in 2 ghost notes comes naturally with almost everything I play.
@Mark – Maybe to keep it top 10 instead of top 11, but I’m curious why you’d leave off an inverted rudiment. I understand wanting to keep from opening the flood gates of, “if this rudiment, why not this rudiment,” but the inverted motion is such a different beast that I’m not sure I would leave it out – not to mention that this is a motion that has immediate translation into other areas of percussion out side of just the snare drum. I also get that you’re trying to give a basics kind of list, a list that a band director would be able sink their teeth into, instead of the 40+ lists.
I also completely agree with the issue you’re addressing and it’s intentions.
Thanks. Good post/topic.
I think you’re right – the inverted stroke is a different beast. But I’ve been caught up in my own mind the argument that it’s really a style – not a stroke.
Take pataflaflas for example. When you play it slowly, it’s not a whip stroke. Play it fast and you have to use a whip action (for efficiency).
So, if you’re teaching a young student pataflaflas and you want them to use a whip action when they get faster, they should use Moeller on the upstroke. As you speed up, the hand naturally whips from low to high.
I suppose you could say the same for downstroked and rebounded flam rudiments… So I just talked myself into thinking you’re right.
What if we just had one rudiment called “Paradiddles Inversions”? That would cover all the stroke styles (whether you add a flam or not):
R L R R L R L L – (downstroke control)
R R L R L L R L – (controlled rebound)
R L R L L R L R – (inverted stroke)
(the other inversion: RLLR LRRL duplicates the downstroke control)
This is a great article and I agree. A couple comments (not stones!).
I think that single stroke rolls should be taught and practiced both duple and triple from the beginning.
I teach the nine stroke roll (and seventeen) before the five because it’s the beginning and ending that is harder for a student. IN a five, it’s mostly beginning and ending. That said, it’s a pretty small matter.
I’ve always felt that along with rolls and flams, the accented triplet is a fundamental rudiment. NARD and PAS never included it but included the more difficult flam accent. I think that the accented triplet is more basic than the paraddidle which has two concepts, the diddle and the accent. Single drags and flam accents are just grid variations on the accented triplet. A paradiddle is an accented triplet with one more note (albeit a very important additional note creating a diddle.)
SO, if I were going to list the fundamentals, it would be
1. Single strokes both duple and triple.
2. Roll, closed and open, applied with a duple or triple roll base starting with a quarter note 9 stroke closed roll. I teach beginning student the closed roll after just a couple lessons, but I wait quite a while before introducing the open roll.
3. Accent, applied to the first of 4 sixteenths (non-alternating accents) and to triplets (alternating accents.)
4. Flam and closed drag as similar concepts. (Open drag is a different concept, related to the open roll)
Yeah, I know, I combined some things here, but these 4 (or
rudiments are very directly applicable to concert and rudimental playing.
Thanks for taking on a subject that has interested me for a long time!!
)
Mark Petty
Yay Mark! I agree. I’ve been thinking about this a lot lately, 40 is a lot of rudiments and many are not so practical.
In my Modern Drummer article series I boiled it down to ten essentials based on the hand motions required, as in: If you can play these ten rudiments then your hands are fully equipped with all the hand motions you’ll ever need to play anything else. Though I wrote with a different purpose such that the buzz roll wasn’t included. (The buzz is absolutely essential, but it’s hard to write an article and exercises about something that requires more practice and experimentation to get good at.) So the buzz puts me at 11, I’d pick another to get to 12. Actually, I think I’d add the “puh-duh-duh.” It’s a single and a double that most people can’t play evenly at a reasonable tempo. And they’re common in many different percussive applications.
And yes, for drumset players the “rudimental applications” hype where it’s all about orchestrating rudiments generally makes me want to puke. Who in their right mind is really going to get into moving the triple ratamaque around the set?
On a related note, the idea of thinking about rudiments while playing set is also a sad one to me. Hopefully it doesn’t sound like I’m thinking swiss army triplets in this video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=grl5SDfjaFk
Hey, Bill
What were your 10 rudiments? I must have missed the article… Or was it the series where you broke down one each month?
To me, a pud-duh-duh is an drag or roll interpretation issue – not necessarily a technique. For the sake of argument, you could teach the 5 stroke roll with 4 different metric interpretations (listed from tight to loose):
1. 6/8 March Style (roll on the 3rd note of a triplet)
2. Duple (8th / 2 16ths)
3. Triple
4. Quintuplet (even spacing of all notes: R L L R R L R R L L )
The 4th would cover the ‘puh-duh-duh’ skill – but isn’t nearly as applicable as a loose interp of a 6 stroke roll.
It’s just so hard to define what is an essential skill and what is a style…
I completely disagree. All 40 are each unique, and most of the “hybrids” are as well. After teaching since 1995 I think it’s all in the approach to the rudiments. What we need instead of a confusing (yet simple) list of rudiments for students to learn from, is a “matrix” of rudiments with the essentials (and basic “one-handers”) across the top row and down along the first column. Each “cell” then contains the essential “mixture” of the two rudiments that intersect that cell. Each mix should contain three rhythmic possibilities: on the beat, not on the beat (not necessarily “off” the beat), and triplets. With all this great technology, is there any one out there with the knowledge and abilities to put something like this together? It’s something I could only do on paper, and that would be a very large piece of paper!
Throughout history, rudiment lists were always a reflection of what the literature required. Check out the rudimentaldrumming site for the commonly accepted rudiment lists, dating back to 1812:
http://www.rudimentaldrumming.com/rudi.html
It’s an interesting history, if you want to do a little searching and piece all of it together. Wikipedia has a decent synopsis, but I’ve wondered why a more detailed history isn’t readily available online. I seem to remember that Jeff Hartsough wrote a great article several years ago for the PAS Journal, but haven’t seen that in a long, long time.
But, back to the subject of ‘essentials’ – I really think there’s only a handful that apply across the board. The need for perfecting the rest is purely based on your particular area of interest. Back in the day when I was judging DCI, I really needed to know most of the hybrids to be able to recognize what I was seeing/hearing and evaluate it. For me now, primarily playing drumset, its really not very important.
Which is not to say that practicing a large vocabulary of rudiments won’t help you no matter what you play… from the PAS 40 to the hybrids, each has a particular set of pressure/control requirements – and you get better “hands” technically every time you work on one.
It’s just a matter of how much time you have in your practice. If you’re not playing in a drumline, why devote a couple hours to rudiments and ignore the other 90%?
I totally agree Mark. I think there is an argument for a new list of ‘kit’ rudiments as only certain patterns have any direct application when playing ‘kit’. Personally I was only ever taught the ‘core’ rudiments, but was never shown what to do with them and was left thinking..”well what’s the point of these things?” So, I think it’s important to state why we learn rudiments and understand how to apply them to the kit as grooves, fills & solos. . Nowadays I tend to stick to these ‘core’ patterns for daily practice, those that I use all the time, and add in a ‘rudiment of the day’ that I change each day so that all the others get covered as well.
I have always wondered if the rudiments shaped the drumming literature or did we look at the most common licks in percussion literature and compile them for the list of rudiments. I almost feel that the rudiments were named and then composers started writing them into music. If you think of orchestral snare drumming you won’t see too many rudiments that go beyond the most basic ones in the music. This is the case, I feel like rudiments lose their validity. Though don’t get me wrong, we go way back and I’m a rather obsessed with studying them.
The problem I see is that we are studying techniques rather than authentic playing material. I understand that the techniques are used everywhere and that is the point of learning the rudiments the way that we do.
I think another approach would be to find the licks that we play the most in our specific percussion field and study them. This would be more applicable than analyzing techniques that are assumed necessary to play that type of music.
Let me know what you think.
Thanks
Marc
To tell you the truth, I’ve never really been a fan of the ‘rudimental ritual’ (or Tommy Igoe’s new ‘great hands’ routine). Certainly, it’s great for a quick run-down on the rudiments – and if you’re a beginner or intermediate player, it’s a great checklist for making sure that you know the basic rudimental vocabulary. But as a way to “develop” great hands or great technique, I don’t think it’s worth the time spent.
Here’s my reasoning..
When I work on technique or rudiments, I tend to focus on a very few which are ‘gateway rudiments’.
For instance, I can work on the single stroke roll for 30 min to an hour before I really feel that I’m gaining ground with finger control and speed. I start at a medium tempo, stretching out the muscles, getting the blood flowing – then gradually increase the speed (not just working on the single stroke roll, but 16-32 on each hand separately as well).
For me, that isolated finger work pays off on almost every single rudiment.
Then I usually work a few others: triple stroke rolls, double stroke rolls (accenting the 2nd stroke), 5 stroke rolls (all interpretations), paradiddles (accented and unaccented) and flams (because I suck at the faster tempo relaxed ‘flam-flam’ technique). By isolating and really focusing on the technique of these few rudiments at medium to fast tempos, I’m really getting the most of my time.
Then I pick 3 or 4 others to focus on for 10-15 minutes (flam accents, flam taps, inverts, drags & ratamacues are some of my favorites because they encompass most of the techniques of the others). Of course, every rudiment has it’s own idiosyncrasies for pressure points, motions, etc. – so you could go nuts on working on the rudiments.
Granted, this isn’t for everyone. Personally, I’ve been practicing for 2-3 hours a day for the past year or so… I’ll be recording a lesson series on the rudiments soon, so I want to make sure I’m in top form (for me, at least). You can be the judge whether I have any idea what I’m talking about… :0)
If I had a beginner to intermediate student, I’d much rather have them isolate a few rudiments to really focus on the hand motions and quality of sound instead of blindly running through all of them. Playing flams slow and playing flams fast are two vastly different techniques. Why only work on them at a moderate tempo?
Finally, for the drumset player (here’s where I’m sure I’ll get flamed) – I don’t think there’s many rudiments that actually have direct application. Flam paradiddles? Ratamacues? Drag Paradiddle #2? Really?? Yes, you can CREATE a fill or groove using these rudiments if that’s what you’re into – but wouldn’t you really rather spend the time on more important techniques that have direct applications?
Mark,
As a drumset player, I was wondering what’s your take on Alan Dawson’s Rudimental Ritual?
Cheers!