Friday, 28 October 2011

Flam Paradiddle-diddle.

Practising, studying and analysing the rudiments has made me realize the PAS list has quite a few errors on it. Before going on, you can download that list for free from the PAS website.

The rudiment we are going to analize is the Flam Paradiddle-diddle, which appears on the PAS list as follows:

Obviously, this rudiment comes from the Single Paradiddle-diddle:

The first problem arrises with the name of this basic rudiment: “Single Paradiddle-diddle”. As there´s no other rudiment named “Double Paradiddle-diddle” or “Triple Paradiddle-diddle”, I see no need in using "Single" to name it. All drummers in the world have had no problem identifying this rudiment as “Paradidle-diddle”. Also, it´s the only rudiment in the Paradiddle family which its pattern is written twice (see the pdf file from the previous link). The Paradiddle, Double Paradiddle and Triple Paradiddle being written twice makes sense, as these rudiments alternate hands on each beat so, before you complete a full cycle and start again with the same hand, two patterns of the rudiment have passed, thus the doble writing making sense. That´s not the case with the Paradiddle-diddle, as it always starts with the same hand, thus writing its pattern twice is not necesary.

So, the Paradiddle-diddle always starts with the same hand, and this where I think the mistake with the Flam Paradiddle-diddle comes from. Logic makes us think that the Flam Paradiddle-diddle is nothing but a Paradiddle-diddle with the adition of a flam (and that´s exactly how it is), but I think that adition of a flam should not alter in any way the sticking of the basic rudiment on which it is based. That´s where the problem lies: the Flam Paradiddle-diddle alternates hands on each beat, while his “dad” (the Paradiddle-diddle) doesn´t. Again, here are the pictures for you to check this inconsistency:

To me, it makes no sense at all to alter the basic sticking of a rudiment just because we are adding a flam. In my modest opinion, this is the correct way the Flam Paradiddle-diddle should be written:

Here´s a video on which I´m comparing both versions at different tempi:

This is my idea about the Flam Paraddidle-diddle. I think the transcription mistake is evident. What´s your opinion on this subject?

…et in Arcadia ego.
© David Valdés

No comments:

Post a Comment