This past week, I have seen several Internet comments that have made me realize just how brainwashed… um, “preconditioned” some of us are in our understanding of performances, especially as related to technique and sound quality.
I grew up in the American rudimental drumming scene, just like many of you who are reading this article. I always enjoyed hearing other drummers’ thoughts on technique, sound quality, practice strategies, etc. However, I did not simply listen to those from the drum & bugle corps/marching band world. I also enjoy learning about fife drumming, pipe band drumming, Basel drumming, etc. I have found the more you are aware of how other people do things, the less adamant you are that your way is the only right way. (Though sometimes, a certain way is the best way for what you want to accomplish—and that is the key.)
In this article I would like to dispel two myths about percussion commonly found in American percussion education. If you can break loose from your preconditioning, I think you will find yourself freer to enjoy a much wider variety of performances.
Myth #1: Inner Beats Must Always Be Kept Low
Earlier this week, I saw a Facebook video of a drummer from Russia who had a great sound and a high level of technical virtuosity. However, his style looked very different from the typical American drum & bugle corps style of the 2010s. One comment said, “Keep your tap heights down.” Now, I realize many people on the Internet are often not afraid to criticize, but this comment was frankly ignorant of the style the drummer was trying to achieve—and, indeed, was achieving quite well.
The low tap heights mostly began in 1970s drum & bugle corps. In the 1960s, three snares and three single tenors were quite common. This eventually grew to four snares and four tenors. During this time, most drum lines played with very high stick heights. This created a certain visual fluidity, and it also helped to fill out the percussion sound within the entire corps. This high style is still present in many modern fife & drum corps and some alumni drum & bugle corps.
In the 1970s, drum lines began to get much larger. By the early 1980s, 10-12 snares was not uncommon in the larger corps. In order to clean these huge lines—both visually and aurally—many instructors had the players keep their tap heights low, and most dynamic differences came from the accents.
In the early 2000s, I performed at a PASIC clinic for Mitch Markovitch, one of the greatest drummers to come from the 1960s. I played a selection of his famous championship solo Stamina. The passage had loud flam accents played as 16th note triplets. As a good product of modern drum & bugle corps, I brought out the accents and kept the tap heights low. He said, “No, no, no! The dynamic level is fortissimo! You’re only playing the accents at fortissimo. You need to fill out the sound of the inner beats, so that the whole phrase is fortissimo.” He then went on to demonstrate the passage with a much fuller sound. You could still clearly hear the difference between accents and taps, but depth of the sound was quite different.
Now was my approach wrong? Not according to the majority of instructors today. Was his approach wrong? Not according to the way he wanted his own composition to sound. The truth is that both approaches are musically legitimate. Both approaches make a clear difference between accented and non-accented notes. However, one approach keeps an extreme contrast between inner beats and accents, while the other approach more readily adjusts the inner beats according to the dynamic level. Both approaches have their pros and cons, and both can produce a great sound.
Here are two examples of these different styles. The “low inner beat” approach is demonstrated in this video by Matt Savage. He has a very tight and controlled sound. The “full inner beat” approach is demonstrated by Javier Morales. He has a huge, full sound. Matt Savage marched with the Bridgemen in the 1980s, a time when the low inner beat approach was standard. Javier Morales has marched drum & bugle corps, but he comes from a fife & drum background. These videos clearly demonstrate how great both styles can be.
Matt Savage:
Javier Morales:
Of course, the approach to your accents and inner beats will be largely dependent upon the type of drum line with which you perform. You obviously have to use fuller or lower inner beats based on the style the instructor is trying to achieve among the whole line. However, different styles are musically legitimate. In solo drumming especially, you should feel free to use different styles to produce the music you want to create.
Myth #2: All Muscle Tension Is Bad
This second myth borders on the ridiculous, but I’m constantly amazed how many people proclaim it. This past week, I saw an online discussion stating that “proper” technique is best achieved by playing on surfaces with high rebound. Several people argued that playing on low rebound surfaces, such as a pillow or spongy practice pad, would build muscle, which would create too much muscle tightness and hinder your sound quality.
First of all, it’s ridiculous to imagine how developing your muscles could create a worse sound quality. That’s like saying a wind player with better lung power can’t play smoothly. Second, most drummers who advocate a high amount of rebound actually control their sticks more than they admit. Third, most drummers who strive to maintain an all rebound technique have poor control of material requiring lower stick heights, such as the grace notes of flams and fast notes at soft dynamic levels. Fourth, most people agree that the snare and tenor lines of today are better than they were 15-20 years ago. (I won’t get into the “old school vs. new school” debate by going much earlier than that.) But the techniques that were used 15-20 years ago are generally of the same school of thought as contemporary drumming. Yet most drum lines today are utilizing more muscle control than lines of the mid-’90s and early 2000s. Over the past couple of years, I have read several interviews by leading DCI and WGI instructors stating that they are teaching their lines to utilize more muscle control now, because it gives them better results.
In my opinion, this idea that “all muscle tension is bad” is rather outdated, and those who are currently producing the best results are veering away from this school of thought.
However, you can make the argument that more rebound allows the drum to “sing.” You can also make the argument that more muscle control allows for greater clarity, especially on flams and fast passages at soft volumes. Whenever I find myself questioning someone’s technique, I first ask: Does it sound good? If the answer is yes, then who am I to criticize it?
I compare this difference in styles to the trumpet performances of Louis Armstrong and Wynton Marsalis. Generally speaking, Armstrong had a much brassier sound, and Marsalis had (and still has) a much smoother sound. Of course, both can choose to be brassier or smoother according to the musical situation, but each performer has a distinct tone quality. Is the world richer for both approaches to the trumpet? Absolutely! Was either player right or wrong in their approach? They were only right or wrong in as much as they were able to achieve the sound they desired. Personally, I’m quite glad both approaches exist, and I love listening to both of them play.
In the drumming world, we can similarly compare the styles of Jeff Queen and Scott Johnson. Both are great players, but their approach is distinctly different. Queen is a product of the 1990s when a high amount of rebound was in style. He has many videos online, and some of them are more impressive than the one I chose, but this one gives a good demonstration of a rebound-focused technique. Scott Johnson is more a product of the late 1970s and early 1980s when a more controlled style was popular. He also has numerous videos that I could have chosen, but this one is just plain fun to watch.
Jeff Queen:
Scott Johnson:
Queen’s more resonant approach generally sounds quite good, and Johnson’s more controlled approach also sounds quite good. Of course, if the resonant approach gets too sloppy, then I would say it has gone too far to one extreme. And if the controlled approach gets harsh and abrasive, I would say it has gone too far to the other extreme. But there is a spectrum of resonance and crispness, and everything along that spectrum can be really enjoyable to watch and hear.
Conclusion
In writing this, I realize that many myths die hard. No doubt many will disagree with me. However, I would encourage you to set aside any preconceived notions about what technique must be. When you see something that seems a bit different, just ask yourself: Does it sound good? If it does, then you’ve just discovered something new. You’ve just discovered a richer world with more options. And maybe, just maybe, you might learn something that could help your own drumming.
What do you think? Do you agree or disagree? Are there any other “myths” out there? Leave your thoughts in the comments section at the bottom of this article.