I offer a challenge to the forum

bleh. I wish people would stop worrying about rudiments and just PLAY. music is already classified enough without classifying the notes themselves... often people forget that music is supposed to be fun, not science!
 
buzz roll anyone? buzz roll has no set number of strokes that each hand has to play, you just gotta buzz the snare. pretty vague and im pretty sure it doesnt involve any of the 40 rudiments. not doubles, not singles, not triples, their just buzzes!
 
Ok. It was quite a challenge, but I conquered it. This took me hours.

basic_manuscript.GIF
 
But it's actually based on a rudiment which is triplet. I think the OP wanted to point out there's no possibility of playing drum if any kind of rudiment form isn't involved.

Here are the 40 rudiments from the Percussive Arts Society.

I see no Triplet listed as a rudiment!!!!!
 

Attachments

  • Picture 3.png
    Picture 3.png
    29 KB · Views: 348
  • Picture 4.png
    Picture 4.png
    19.4 KB · Views: 344
Name this rudiment rrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr.....direct me to a publication which has that as a rudiment..

rrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr is a single stroke roll with the lefts being played as rests.


Triplets. Right hand tom, left hand snare, right foot bass. No rudiment there.
Again, single stroke roll with three hits.



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
It *IS* a trick proposition.
Seeing that singles, doubles, triples, and buzzes are all rudiments.
You can't play a drum without using one of those strokes.
 
Ok. It was quite a challenge, but I conquered it. This took me hours.

basic_manuscript.GIF

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.

............................................................
 
I'm sorry but where in that list do you see singles as a rudiment.?
 
I'm sorry but are you trying to prove a point? The way I see it and you must understand this I'm sure: rudiments are just arbitrary organizations of some things we play. There isn't any big secret as far as I'm concerned. You don't need to worry about if you're playing a rudiment or not. Do you want to impress other dudes because you "play rudimentally" or something? Play the drums. Please stop trying to ask some unanswerable mystery question of life, which this question is not.
 
I'm sorry but are you trying to prove a point? The way I see it and you must understand this I'm sure: rudiments are just arbitrary organizations of some things we play. There isn't any big secret as far as I'm concerned. You don't need to worry about if you're playing a rudiment or not. Do you want to impress other dudes because you "play rudimentally" or something? Play the drums. Please stop trying to ask some unanswerable mystery question of life, which this question is not.

It's a perfectly legitimate question from blade123, one that might force some people to approach playing in a different way, however briefly.

In theory, we should all be playing instead of posting here and suggesting people should not ask this or that. You are free to not respond to anything you see here.
 
I'm sorry but are you trying to prove a point? The way I see it and you must understand this I'm sure: rudiments are just arbitrary organizations of some things we play. There isn't any big secret as far as I'm concerned. You don't need to worry about if you're playing a rudiment or not. Do you want to impress other dudes because you "play rudimentally" or something? Play the drums. Please stop trying to ask some unanswerable mystery question of life, which this question is not.

A lot of people don't understand rudiments IMO. Rudiments are to drums as notes are to a trumpet or sax. Phrases like "practice rudiments" just reinforce that. Whenever you are practicing, you are practicing rudiments. You never hear a trumpet player say "I'm going to practice notes", it's "practice high notes" or "work on my tone (while playing notes, but that's implied)". To "practice rudiments" is redundant.



If you don't think there is any merit to this discussion, then leave it. I've never understood why people will reply with statements like "this discussion is a waste of time", didn't they just waste their time by replying that?
 
If you don't think there is any merit to this discussion, then leave it. I've never understood why people will reply with statements like "this discussion is a waste of time", didn't they just waste their time by replying that?

I understand, sorry if I sounded condescending but I legitimately didn't quite understand the question.

I do agree that all of our playing could be called rudiments, although I normally just call it drumming. Like you said, a trumpet player doesn't say "I'm going to practice notes".
 
rrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr is a single stroke roll with the lefts being played as rests.

The first one, a single stroke roll.

No it's not. A single stroke roll is an ALTERNATING series of SINGLES. Not just one. It is just simply wrong, what you are saying.

Most people agree, that a large proportion of drumming is a mixture of singles and doubles, but not everything is a rudiment. Rudiments are exercises used to enhance control (clearly, among others uses), even including all of the Swiss rudiments etc there are only, i suspect, pushing 250 or so official rudiments.

you can't play something that's not a rudiment

a modified rudiment, or a combination of rudiments
That, besides being silly, is not what you said above. You say "you can't play something that's not a rudiment", now that is not true, this has been established; however "a modified rudiment, or a combination of rudiments," now your just being ridiculous... As seen here.
rrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr is a single stroke roll with the lefts being played as rests.
Now the eternal question. Can you play a rest? Or is it simply, a rest.
 
I understand, sorry if I sounded condescending but I legitimately didn't quite understand the question.

I do agree that all of our playing could be called rudiments, although I normally just call it drumming. Like you said, a trumpet player doesn't say "I'm going to practice notes".
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".
This spawned from another thread: "why are rudiments important?". That's like a trumpet player asking "why are notes important?". Notes/rudiments are what you play. You can't play a trumpet without playing notes (I guess you could hit it, but then it would be a percussion instrument and rudiments would take over), just like you can't play a drum without playing rudiments.

I think you think I'm trying to make rudiments this huge ordeal when I'm actually trying to do the exact opposite. I'm trying to reduce rudiments to their very base.
 
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".
This spawned from another thread: "why are rudiments important?". That's like a trumpet player asking "why are notes important?". .

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. Rudiments are important because they organize your playing and allow you to simplify complex patterns into smaller chunks and understand them more easily. A stroke on a drum would be the same as a note for a trumpeter. In other words I was incorrect in my post before this one, I belive you can say "I'm going to practice rudiments" because that's what you do-- practice specific examples and exercises which you can utilize in your playing. You CAN call anything a rudiment but it's pointless because you should only practice what you're going to use. IF we did universally agree on something that is not a rudiment by any means, then that's pointless. I don't believe it matters however, because anything that you say can be named some rudiment whether legitimately or ridiculously.

I think you think I'm trying to make rudiments this huge ordeal when I'm actually trying to do the exact opposite. I'm trying to reduce rudiments to their very base.

That's funny, I was about to say the same thing to you. It seems that we fundamentally disagree on why drummers classify things as rudiments.

And I'll jump in on that single stroke roll deal too-- like latin groover said, RRRRRRRRRRRRR... is not a single stroke roll with the left hand resting. That's not how rudiments are constructed. Is a single stroke roll a double stroke roll with all the double strokes resting??? No.
 
RLF RLF, single stroke roll with three hits.

Single stroke roll isn't played RLL RLL or RLR RLR, let alone RLF RLF. I think you should spend some time working on your rudiments, pal... ;-)

Seeing that singles, doubles, triples, and buzzes are all rudiments. You can't play a drum without using one of those strokes.

There's your problem -- you see it wrong. Singles, doubles and buzzes themselves are not rudiments. Single stroke roll, double stroke roll and buzz roll are rudiments. Single strokes, double strokes and buzzes are parts of rudiments.
 
Back
Top