Breaking away from traditional drum set constructions

Jivi

Senior Member
Recently I have been looking at various materials that drum kits could be made of and different innovations that various companies have come up with to change the way drum kits are made. I came across cool materials like carbon fiber and fiber glass kits and also found that Pearl has a Masterworks carbon fiber kit available. Even so, there are only a handful of companies that use these other materials.

Some innovations I thought were cool were the Kumu sideholes on their kicks that let you have both heads on without a hole cut into them but rather cut into the bass drum itself therefor leaving the resonance intact. Sleishman make their interesting free-floating drums too which tunes both heads equally with each other supposedly providing that perfect sweet spot as well as full shell resonance.

I was just thinking that the majority of drum kits are still made more or less the same way these days and not many stray too far from the norm. Are woods superior to lesser used materials because they actually sound better or because by knowing which is made from wood and which isn't we automatically say that the wood is "warmer"? And are the small number of innovations that creep up not actually as good as they are made out to be hence more companies don't copy?

Mind you I haven't heard any of these myself, just wondering what you guys think, are manufacturers and consumers stuck to tradition or is the tradition still the better way to go?
 
I propose that the way of the market determines the drum products. As big as a market it is, it's relatively tiny next to say, the home furniture market. So I think manufacturers look at what they can sell and provide that. A big company like Pearl will develop drums from new materials, but they go into this knowing it will not be a big seller.

I used to joke that Pearl can make whatever it wants, as long as they continued to make the Export so they can pay the bills.

It's inextricably linked to what people perceive and buy as well. There's a guitar company called Rainsong that's making these great, weather-resistant dreanaught acoustic guitars out of carbon fiber. The one I heard, sounded like a guitar, and even better, didn't suffer from the ills of being a wood guitar. You could practically get it all wet in the rain and the things will still play and sound good. But it's not wood. I think you'd have an easier time getting drummers to go with new materials. Carl Palmer was one of the first guys to try all kinds of things: stainless steel drums, acrylic drums, drums made out of paper pulp, but not everyone is like that. And the music instrument market is much smaller!

It's kind of a shame, but people just associate "wood" with certain things, like musical instruments. The market mentality has to fundamentally shift before anything new will overtake wood. Trick is about the closest thing to a success story, however. They make these wonderful aluminum drums that sound great. And even with that, not everyone buys it, either.
 
Recently I have been looking at various materials that drum kits could be made of and different innovations that various companies have come up with to change the way drum kits are made. I came across cool materials like carbon fiber and fiber glass kits and also found that Pearl has a Masterworks carbon fiber kit available. Even so, there are only a handful of companies that use these other materials.

Some innovations I thought were cool were the Kumu sideholes on their kicks that let you have both heads on without a hole cut into them but rather cut into the bass drum itself therefor leaving the resonance intact. Sleishman make their interesting free-floating drums too which tunes both heads equally with each other supposedly providing that perfect sweet spot as well as full shell resonance.

I was just thinking that the majority of drum kits are still made more or less the same way these days and not many stray too far from the norm. Are woods superior to lesser used materials because they actually sound better or because by knowing which is made from wood and which isn't we automatically say that the wood is "warmer"? And are the small number of innovations that creep up not actually as good as they are made out to be hence more companies don't copy?

Mind you I haven't heard any of these myself, just wondering what you guys think, are manufacturers and consumers stuck to tradition or is the tradition still the better way to go?

I am definitely with you 100 percent on this. Plywood has many advantages, but it is just one of many great materials to make instruments out of. I'd say 99 percent of all kits are ply, meaning ply construction is a sign of mass-market efficiency and marketing-driven acceptance, built up over 150 years. A DW and a CB700 really have very little separating them, just extra workmanship and different tree species. They are fundamentally the same drums, made of the same type of composite wood material.

There are a growing number of boutique manufacturers making carbon fiber, metal, stave, block, glass and even solid-shell drums. Surprisingly, one of these kits costs about as much as a high-end DW, meaning that perception, middle-of-the-road acceptance and marketing play a huge role in drum selection. Quality is a given at that level, but individuality and innovation are WAY down on the list.
 
I propose that the way of the market determines the drum products. As big as a market it is, it's relatively tiny next to say, the home furniture market. So I think manufacturers look at what they can sell and provide that. A big company like Pearl will develop drums from new materials, but they go into this knowing it will not be a big seller.

I used to joke that Pearl can make whatever it wants, as long as they continued to make the Export so they can pay the bills.

It's inextricably linked to what people perceive and buy as well. There's a guitar company called Rainsong that's making these great, weather-resistant dreanaught acoustic guitars out of carbon fiber. The one I heard, sounded like a guitar, and even better, didn't suffer from the ills of being a wood guitar. You could practically get it all wet in the rain and the things will still play and sound good. But it's not wood. I think you'd have an easier time getting drummers to go with new materials. Carl Palmer was one of the first guys to try all kinds of things: stainless steel drums, acrylic drums, drums made out of paper pulp, but not everyone is like that. And the music instrument market is much smaller!

It's kind of a shame, but people just associate "wood" with certain things, like musical instruments. The market mentality has to fundamentally shift before anything new will overtake wood. Trick is about the closest thing to a success story, however. They make these wonderful aluminum drums that sound great. And even with that, not everyone buys it, either.

I played with a fellow who played one of those carbon fiber guitars and it sounded incredible, strong, rich, cutting and mellow. Carbon fiber is just synthetic wood.

The marketing has been so good on "wood" drums that people have forgotten that plywood isn't wood at all - it's a wood composite material, like particle board or OSB. It is engineered for strength, low cost and workability. That it makes great musical instruments is a fortunate coincidence.

Plywood could make an excellent material for acoustic guitars, but guitars with plywood are considered cheap and inferior - an terrible prejudice, but it just goes to show you that even as plywood drum players look down on non-ply drums, so too does the guitarist community look down on plywood nstruments.
 
I'm getting a carbon fiber drum set on Sunday, and I am super excited. Interestingly enough though, this is an older kit, made by Monolith drums. Evidently, the company went out of business because not enough people can afford carbon fiber.
 
Some innovations I thought were cool were the Kumu sideholes on their kicks that let you have both heads on without a hole cut into them but rather cut into the bass drum itself therefor leaving the resonance intact.

Impact (fiberglass drums) started doing that in 1985, at my suggestion. :)

kit070505.jpg


But as far as significant innovations in construction, very little has changed. Thin/thick shells come and go, ply type and grain direction varies, a few typical edges are applied, and that's pretty much it. As for the resulting sound, I'd say the real innovations have been improvements in head technology, and the introduction of the RIMS mounts in the '70s.

But the drums themselves? Nah, a shell is basically a shell. Even with segment and stave construction, there's such a niche appeal, I hesitate to call that innovation.

Bermuda
 
Impact (fiberglass drums) started doing that in 1985, at my suggestion. :)

kit070505.jpg


But as far as significant innovations in construction, very little has changed. Thin/thick shells come and go, ply type and grain direction varies, a few typical edges are applied, and that's pretty much it. As for the resulting sound, I'd say the real innovations have been improvements in head technology, and the introduction of the RIMS mounts in the '70s.

But the drums themselves? Nah, a shell is basically a shell. Even with segment and stave construction, there's such a niche appeal, I hesitate to call that innovation.

Bermuda

Very little has changed in terms of mass market acceptance. Innovations, like fiberglass drums, are still innovations, regardless of whether mass-market manufacturers produce and market them. Solid shell and stave drums are actually the most ancient way of making drums; wood composite materials like plywood are a relatively new innovation, being just 150 years old.
 
It's not that manufacturers are un willing, or that normal is the only thing marketed.

It's just what sells is what sells. Most items that are "different" have traditionally been terrible sellers.

Going all the way back to the Trixon/Vox odd shape drums.

1245315314408_f.jpg


Numerous companies have tried carbon fiber, but it's a very expensive material to work with, and the price scares most people off.

Dozens of different fiberglass sets have been made over the years, as well as fiberglass and wood hybrids, but overall, none of the term really stuck in the long term.

Peavy tried a new way of making wood drums with huge rings and supper thin shells, and they went over like a lead balloon.

101 other products have come and gone attempting to make drums that were "different" and few really take off.

Of course, it's not only drums that stick to wood. Violins, cellos, guitars and many other instruments are based on wood, and that hasn't really changed either (although those space age electric violins look cool).

My theories as to why alternate constructions don't take off:
First off: The overall drum sound, especially once run through mics, run through a board, mixed with the rest of the band, doesn't sound drastically different compared to the drastic difference in construction. It still sounds like a drum.

Second: The average working drummer, be it the guy in a cover band, doing casuals, or getting hired to back a singer on a major tour, isn't paid to sound different. The work comes from blending in and making it feel right. Going radical usually isn't part of the job description. Original bands may welcome radical different stuff, but that's only a small part of what is otherwise a small market to begin with.

But as music evolves, it wouldn't surprise me if one day something radical becomes part of a new genre of music, and works it way into the mainstream.
 
Of course, it's not only drums that stick to wood. Violins, cellos, guitars and many other instruments are based on wood, and that hasn't really changed either (although those space age electric violins look cool).

Plywood is not wood; it is a processed wood composite material.Ironically, these string instruments you mention are mostly made of natural whole wood. Their marketing literature tells these musicians to look down on anything with plywood in it (contrabasses being the exception, due to their size, where the superior strength of plywood is necessary). Drum marketing literature continually refers to "wood drums," but they are a wood composite, not wood, no more than an apple pie is an apple.

Plastic drumheads were successfully marketed. Plastic drums, not so much. Wood composite materials like plywood are inexpensive, easy to work with, very durable, and can be made to look very beautiful. It just so happens they make good sounding instruments. Why change a good thing?
 
Very little has changed in terms of mass market acceptance. Innovations, like fiberglass drums, are still innovations, regardless of whether mass-market manufacturers produce and market them. Solid shell and stave drums are actually the most ancient way of making drums; wood composite materials like plywood are a relatively new innovation, being just 150 years old.

Yup - plywood drums are a relatively new thing... Gretsch made the first production plywood drum shells in the 20's I believe. Prior to that they were usually made from solid pieces of wood that were prone to warping / going out of round and were certainly much more expensive and difficult to work with.
 
Plywood is not wood; it is a processed wood composite material. Drum marketing literature continually refers to "wood drums," but they are a wood composite, not wood, no more than an apple pie is an apple.

Wood composite materials like plywood are inexpensive, easy to work with, very durable, and can be made to look very beautiful. It just so happens they make good sounding instruments. Why change a good thing?

I want to playfully quibble with you here a bit on this. I totally get what you're saying, but I think your metaphor goes a bit too far. "Plywood is not wood" is a little misleading- you make it sound like it's an artificial wood substitute and that none of it AT ALL is, and never was, wood, i.e, a tree. Technically, "plywood", as a noun, is not the same as "wood", true, but it's 99% wood, and retains most of wood's qualities. If you were to take a plywood drumshell sans hardware, remove the wrap and/or stained/laquered outer ply, separate each subsequent plies, sand off the glue residue, what's left? Wood. Not a blob of pulp, or melted plastic, or scrap metal. Actual trapezoidal (assuming diagonal seams), thin, bent pieces of wood.

"No more than an apple pie is an apple" is also a little misleading. An apple pie contains a much larger percentage of non-apple ingredients, and the pieces of apple have undergone radical chemical changes from cooking. A more accurate metaphor would be "a Caesar salad is not lettuce"- it's true, but it's 99% lettuce (unfortunately, all the ones I get are, with not nearly enough dressing, cheese, & croutons, but I digress), and retains mostly lettuce-like qualities.

So I agree with you that a plywood shell is different than a solid wood shell, that's obvious. I also agree that they'll have different qualities of sound and construction, from which the pros & cons are fodder for another thread. However, plywood IS wood, that happens to also have some glue and finishing. A wooden bench is still wood even if it's painted and has some nails in it. It just won't resonate as well- or at least not in the same manner- as a bench carved out of a solid piece of wood if you whack them with a mallet!

Just my $.02... :)
 
I want to playfully quibble with you here a bit on this. I totally get what you're saying, but I think your metaphor goes a bit too far. "Plywood is not wood" is a little misleading- you make it sound like it's an artificial wood substitute and that none of it AT ALL is, and never was, wood, i.e, a tree. Technically, "plywood", as a noun, is not the same as "wood", true, but it's 99% wood, and retains most of wood's qualities. If you were to take a plywood drumshell sans hardware, remove the wrap and/or stained/laquered outer ply, separate each subsequent plies, sand off the glue residue, what's left? Wood. Not a blob of pulp, or melted plastic, or scrap metal. Actual trapezoidal (assuming diagonal seams), thin, bent pieces of wood.

"No more than an apple pie is an apple" is also a little misleading. An apple pie contains a much larger percentage of non-apple ingredients, and the pieces of apple have undergone radical chemical changes from cooking. A more accurate metaphor would be "a Caesar salad is not lettuce"- it's true, but it's 99% lettuce (unfortunately, all the ones I get are, with not nearly enough dressing, cheese, & croutons, but I digress), and retains mostly lettuce-like qualities.

So I agree with you that a plywood shell is different than a solid wood shell, that's obvious. I also agree that they'll have different qualities of sound and construction, from which the pros & cons are fodder for another thread. However, plywood IS wood, that happens to also have some glue and finishing. A wooden bench is still wood even if it's painted and has some nails in it. It just won't resonate as well- or at least not in the same manner- as a bench carved out of a solid piece of wood if you whack them with a mallet!

Just my $.02... :)

Well said. It is important to get the details right. All in all an interesting discussion. It reminds me of a similar debate with airliners: someone decided that the tube with two fins looked boring, and then went and tested a lot of alternative designs. In the end, however, there are just some designs that really work and people tend to want to stick with them.
Casper
 
I played with a fellow who played one of those carbon fiber guitars and it sounded incredible, strong, rich, cutting and mellow. Carbon fiber is just synthetic wood.

The marketing has been so good on "wood" drums that people have forgotten that plywood isn't wood at all - it's a wood composite material, like particle board or OSB. It is engineered for strength, low cost and workability. That it makes great musical instruments is a fortunate coincidence.

Plywood could make an excellent material for acoustic guitars, but guitars with plywood are considered cheap and inferior - an terrible prejudice, but it just goes to show you that even as plywood drum players look down on non-ply drums, so too does the guitarist community look down on plywood nstruments.

really? i coulda sworn all my acoustic guitars were ply and their by far not cheap ones....
 
Well, I am making it happen. I have a dozen totally unique ideas that i am going to try to market.

Plywood is very strong, and because of its strength I can do a whole lot of very cool stuff with it. I make my own ply shells, and I can make virtually any outside diameter... It gives me a whole lot of power to create drums! :)

Shown here are a couple.... (though I have to make some adjustments to this style...)

karma%205.jpg
 
Well, I am making it happen. I have a dozen totally unique ideas that i am going to try to market.

Plywood is very strong, and because of its strength I can do a whole lot of very cool stuff with it. I make my own ply shells, and I can make virtually any outside diameter... It gives me a whole lot of power to create drums! :)

Shown here are a couple.... (though I have to make some adjustments to this style...)

karma%205.jpg

Absolutely stunning! Steel wire?
Casper
 
Wow, that's a very cool looking drum there Crazy8s!

Some very interesting responses here which is great. I had a thought about wood being "inconsistent" in it's make-up which would always give wood that character that consistent materials may not have. Maybe it's the reason why violins, pianos, cellos etc. did not move away from wood since wood could create a perhaps slightly unique sound in each creation of the instrument. I suppose that's why wood drums are just the widely accepted form of drum kit construction?

If everyone had identical acrylic sets then would they all sound the same, as opposed to everyone having identical wood kits that could potentially all sound slightly different thanks to the characteristics of wood?
 
I want to playfully quibble with you here a bit on this. I totally get what you're saying, but I think your metaphor goes a bit too far. "Plywood is not wood" is a little misleading- you make it sound like it's an artificial wood substitute and that none of it AT ALL is, and never was, wood, i.e, a tree. Technically, "plywood", as a noun, is not the same as "wood", true, but it's 99% wood, and retains most of wood's qualities. If you were to take a plywood drumshell sans hardware, remove the wrap and/or stained/laquered outer ply, separate each subsequent plies, sand off the glue residue, what's left? Wood. Not a blob of pulp, or melted plastic, or scrap metal. Actual trapezoidal (assuming diagonal seams), thin, bent pieces of wood.

"No more than an apple pie is an apple" is also a little misleading. An apple pie contains a much larger percentage of non-apple ingredients, and the pieces of apple have undergone radical chemical changes from cooking. A more accurate metaphor would be "a Caesar salad is not lettuce"- it's true, but it's 99% lettuce (unfortunately, all the ones I get are, with not nearly enough dressing, cheese, & croutons, but I digress), and retains mostly lettuce-like qualities.

So I agree with you that a plywood shell is different than a solid wood shell, that's obvious. I also agree that they'll have different qualities of sound and construction, from which the pros & cons are fodder for another thread. However, plywood IS wood, that happens to also have some glue and finishing. A wooden bench is still wood even if it's painted and has some nails in it. It just won't resonate as well- or at least not in the same manner- as a bench carved out of a solid piece of wood if you whack them with a mallet!

Just my $.02... :)

Let's say that plywood isn't just wood.

...and doesn't glue inhibit the resonance of the shell?...

I know that Brady uses epoxy resin to stick their plies together...http://www.bradydrums.com.au/ply-drum-making.html

So I agree with you that a plywood shell is different than a solid wood shell, that's obvious. I also agree that they'll have different qualities of sound and construction, from which the pros & cons are fodder for another thread. However, plywood IS wood, that happens to also have some glue and finishing. A wooden bench is still wood even if it's painted and has some nails in it. It just won't resonate as well- or at least not in the same manner- as a bench carved out of a solid piece of wood if you whack them with a mallet!

Some innovations I thought were cool were the Kumu sideholes on their kicks that let you have both heads on without a hole cut into them but rather cut into the bass drum itself therefor leaving the resonance intact. Sleishman make their interesting free-floating drums too which tunes both heads equally with each other supposedly providing that perfect sweet spot as well as full shell resonance.


I think DeathMetalConga will agree with me, free-floating solid-shell drums would sound epic.
 
Plywood is about 95% wood. That remaining 5% is not wood, but it enables one the ability to do things with that wood that cannot be done any other way to obtain strength.

There is far less wasted wood (sawdust) when making ply shells, and they can be made more affordably too. There are a great many positives to using plywood, and I believe that the positives of plywood outweigh the positives of other shell construction types that use wood.

Each style is good, and has a purpose. The sound differences between them are actually quite minimal and only a very small fragment of the population can even tell the difference.

For example, a stave shell will break from a drop of about 3 feet. A ply shell will not. A ply shell would not break from a drop of 30 feet, or probably any height considering terminal velocity. The strength of a drum is important to consider, when you factor in the environment they live in. Ever drop your drum accidentally? Ever beat your drums?

:)
 
Back
Top