Wilcoxon Swing Solos help

[dcrigger]

That's what I thought before I posted it and got some feedback. It is absolutely a 7-stroke ruff (with a drag lead in). To clarify, ruffs can be of any measured length equal to that of any roll, the difference is alternating single strokes versus alternating double strokes. They will have similair notation as well and thus need additional information to differentiate the two variants.

Here's some additional reference material, from the Buddy Rich book "Modern Interpretation of Snare Drum Rudiments" published in 1942, three years before Wilcoxon's The AAD.
From Pg. 16, Lesson 4 description: "All short Single Stroke Rolls are known as Ruffs."

Here is the lesson for the 7 Stroke Ruff page 24:

View attachment 530265


Here is the lesson for the 7 Stroke Roll page 25:

View attachment 530266

The musical notation for the ruff and roll is the same! The differentiation comes from the additional sticking/fingering information placed below the rhythm.

The only question I would ask here - and this is really a question as I really don't know - is this...

I see that Buddy's book was published in '42, but was his "Modern Interpretation of Snare Drum Rudiments" considered rudimental canon back then - I get it existed, but had its "Modern Interpretations" been as adapted into the mainstream of rudimental writing as you are suggesting.

I started studying in 1965 - and even by that time, I don't think it had. I can't remember seeing anyplace that what is described at the end of Lesson 19 - an 1/8th with two slashes - to mean to possibly play 6 single strokes.

Technically - notationally - that double slash notation (for all instruments) means "play four notes in the space of one" - in drumming we've added some variations, first and foremost in using that notation to mean either open or closed rolls - either 4 32nds or four multiple bounce strokes - OR - with added text to describe a seven stroke triplet based roll.

But I can't remember ever seeing any examples (besides these pages from "Modern Interpretations...) that suggest that playing a 7 stroke ruff as a common interpretation for that notation - short of there being specific text instructions tp play it that way.

Simply put - then and I believe today - that is simply not what that notation means - unless specifically instructed otherwise. And I believe is not something Wilcoxon would've intended with very clear spelling it out.

That would be far more unorthodox than writing a seven stroke as a hybrid rhythmic notation for a rhythmic effect ie: putting a drag before a 5 stroke roll. This sort of unusual rhythmic notation of a rudiment shows up in other Wilcoxon pieces and is quite common in Pratt's solos as well.

But IMO the last two bars of Lesson 19 are just wrong - you would not a 7 stoke ruff in that manner - not without specific clarification. And maybe not even then considering that ruff strokes are grace notes - not measured notes... generally speaking.

 

[Hop]

It all leads back to what the sticking below the figure indicates.

Solo No. 66 clears this up for us as a half drag leading to the seven stroke; and the 7 stroke is written as R --> R which means it has to be played as a seven stroke alternating singles or a ruff (as in the Henry Adler/Buddy Rich example above). So the Wilcoxon figure needs to be interpreted as llR-l-r-l-r-l-R to match the R --> R sticking notation below the figure.

To further clarify that the figure was not meant to be played as duple-7 statrting the "e'" of 1, but a tuplet-7 (triplet) starting on the "and" of 1. The the first note is an 8th note and must be given it's value. Again if it was meant to be played starting on the "e" he would have written that way, just like the notation example I provided in post #30.

 

[Markkuliini]

Yes!! Starting on the second 16th (or “e”).

This is how it should be played.

And if there's slashes on top a note, it's played as a double (or alternatively buzz) roll. Never single strokes.

I've studied these books with several teachers, and perfomed these on multiple exams when I was studying music. It was always done like explained above. I don't know why it's notated like that and not as 1 x 16th and then dotted 8th as roll.
But since the drags are most often played as 32nd notes, then the drag leading to a 5 st. roll will be counted as a 7 stroke roll.
Remember that sometimes the note right after the roll's end accent is counted too, resulting into a 6, 8, 10, 12 etc. roll.

 

[Matched Gripper]

It all leads back to what the sticking below the figure indicates.

Solo No. 66 clears this up for us as a half drag leading to the seven stroke; and the 7 stroke is written as R --> R which means it has to be played as a seven stroke alternating singles or a ruff (as in the Henry Adler/Buddy Rich example above). So the Wilcoxon figure needs to be interpreted as llR-l-r-l-r-l-R to match the R --> R sticking notation below the figure.

To further clarify that the figure was not meant to be played as duple-7 statrting the "e'" of 1, but a tuplet-7 (triplet) starting on the "and" of 1. The the first note is an 8th note and must be given it's value. Again if it was meant to be played starting on the "e" he would have written that way, just like the notation example I provided in post #30.

Wilcoxon may have intended 7 hand to hand single strokes. That is not the same as a ruff, which are grace notes. But it is confusing because the double slashes on the 8th note indicate a double stroke open roll. And, a double slashed 8th note is usually played as a 5 stroke roll at marching tempo or faster.

 

[Seb77]

When I studied with Keith Copeland, we did the whole All-American Drummer, but it was all in service of getting your hands together for jazz. Not sure if this is worth much in this discussion, I just would like to offer the idea that this music started out from playing, then someone had to come up with a way to notate it, not the other way round.
Anyway...
We never played a single stroke roll on any of the double-slash notes. (Interesting , though, sounds rather Buddy-style). With faster tempos, there is little time to vary between a 7-stroke roll starting on the "e" or a drag before a 5-stroke roll starting on the &. At faster tempo I would even play everything legato on purpose, so the different ways of notation all sounded like rolls with accents.
I remember thinking that at a certain tempo the 7-stroke roll on just one eighth note was really fast.

 

[cworrick]

Looks like Charlie is still schooling all of us on how to play.

 

[Hop]

My use of the term "ruff" comes from the Adler/Buddy book and from my primary instructors as a shorthand way of saying 'single stroke rolls' and to help differentiate them from "double stroke rolls" in conversation. When lessons were written, I was provided with the more accurate and longhand descriptor of 5/7/9/etc... single stroke rolls and/or double stroke rolls on my charts.

The bars (or slashes) just represent the rhythmic value, 1= 8th's / 2 = 16th's / 3 = 32nd's, and it can be played as a singles or doubles strokes as indicated by the sticking/finger notes.


Again, a seven stroke roll that starts on the "e" is written in this fashion:

Note the 16th note value of the first (and subsequent accented notes) and the dotted 8th with two slashes.
The rudiment 'name' identifies it as a roll so we know we're going to use doubles or diddles not singles or it would be called a "Single Stroke Seven" (citing PAS nomenclature).
Note the roll begins and ends with different hands. You simply can't end a rudimental-based seven stroke roll with the same hand you start with or it's not really a 'seven stroke roll' but something else.

I figured there might be some YT vid's with the correctly played sticking of this Wilcoxon figure I highlighted in Solo 66, but every vid ignores the drag lead in and plays it as a normal triplet/tuplet-based seven stroke roll starting on the "and" & ending with an accent on the next downbeat (Yes, even Steve Smith!). However, that's not right.

Let's give Wilcoxon credit for knowing how to transpose these figures and not some error. This figure is throughout the book and shows up as early as Solo No. 3, and as late as No. 150. Wilcoxon is very clear on his sticking/fingering. Again look to the other example of a 'clean' Wilcoxon 7 stroke in the Solo No. 61 example, with the sticking/finger noted as L --> R.

 

[Matched Gripper]

It all leads back to what the sticking below the figure indicates.

Solo No. 66 clears this up for us as a half drag leading to the seven stroke; and the 7 stroke is written as R --> R which means it has to be played as a seven stroke alternating singles or a ruff (as in the Henry Adler/Buddy Rich example above). So the Wilcoxon figure needs to be interpreted as llR-l-r-l-r-l-R to match the R --> R sticking notation below the figure.

To further clarify that the figure was not meant to be played as duple-7 statrting the "e'" of 1, but a tuplet-7 (triplet) starting on the "and" of 1. The the first note is an 8th note and must be given it's value. Again if it was meant to be played starting on the "e" he would have written that way, just like the notation example I provided in post #30.

You may be right. But, you have to make several assumptions that are inconsistent with standard snare drum notation. To be sure, drum notation is not as standardized as other instruments, but, Wilcoxon's notation is conflicting under any interpretation.

 

[Hop]

Wilcoxon may have intended 7 hand to hand single strokes. That is not the same as a ruff, which are grace notes. But it is confusing because the double slashes on the 8th note indicate a double stroke open roll. And, a double slashed 8th note is usually played as a 5 stroke roll at marching tempo or faster.

I totally get it... I don't want to belabor that point, I see those slashes and I'm generally going to go with a double stroke roll over a single stroke roll... which is why the figure in question was so troubling for me and made me skip just about every exercise in the Wilcoxon book that used it.

 

[Matched Gripper]

This is how it should be played.

And if there's slashes on top a note, it's played as a double (or alternatively buzz) roll. Never single strokes.

I've studied these books with several teachers, and perfomed these on multiple exams when I was studying music. It was always done like explained above. I don't know why it's notated like that and not as 1 x 16th and then dotted 8th as roll.
But since the drags are most often played as 32nd notes, then the drag leading to a 5 st. roll will be counted as a 7 stroke roll.
Remember that sometimes the note right after the roll's end accent is counted too, resulting into a 6, 8, 10, 12 etc. roll.

A buzz roll is usually notated differently than an open roll. Instead of bars or slashes, there will be a "Z" over the stem of the rolled note. Reminds me of oatmeal. Haha!

 

[Matched Gripper]

I totally get it... I don't want to belabor that point, I see those slashes and I'm generally going to go with a double stroke roll over a single stroke roll... which is why the figure in question was so troubling for me and made me skip just about every exercise in the Wilcoxon book that used it.

Pop quiz! How would you play a rolled note that isn't tied to the next note?

 

[Markkuliini]

A buzz roll is usually notated differently than an open roll. Instead of bars or slashes, there will be a "Z" over the stem of the rolled note. Reminds me of oatmeal. Haha!

View attachment 530412

It depends on the context. Lately I've been studying classical drum books and etydes, for example Buster Bailey's Wrist Twister-book, and there's no z's to be seen. Slashes like on any roll notation BUT still all the rolls are meant to be played as buzz rolls.
Sure, when there both buzz and double strokes in the same piece, they should be differentiated like you showed or with written indicators.

 

[Markkuliini]

Pop quiz! How would you play a rolled note that isn't tied to the next note?

Cut the roll short: rrllrrllR is quarter note roll tied to next note. rrllrrl R is the same but not tied.

 

[Hop]

Pop quiz! How would you play a rolled note that isn't tied to the next note?

Without a written example to examine, I would just say I'd play it as written (note value wise) but not accent the 'ending' or next note... that note that shoulda' been tied.

EDIT: This is a reminder why I should never raise my hand in class!!!!

 

[Matched Gripper]

Cut the roll short: rrllrrllR is quarter note roll tied to next note. rrllrrl R is the same but not tied.

Correct. A "cut roll." But, the last single stroke before the next note is unaccented.

 

[Markkuliini]

Correct. A "cut roll." But, the last single stroke before the next note is unaccented.

Exactly.

 

[Matched Gripper]

Without a written example to examine, I would just say I'd play it as written (note value wise) but not accent the 'ending' or next note... that note that shoulda' been tied.

EDIT: This is a reminder why I should never raise my hand in class!!!!

See above.

 

[Markkuliini]

This is also one way they write press rolls (aka tremolos) on classical pieces. Letters tr above the staff and wavy line to indicate the length.
It's bit easier to read in my opinion, since the notes are clearer visually. Note that's there's absolutely no indications of stickings or roll rates. It's up to the player to decide.

 

[Hop]

This is also one way they write press rolls (aka tremolos) on classical pieces. Letters tr above the staff and wavy line to indicate the length.
It's bit easier to read in my opinion, since the notes are clearer visually. Note that's there's absolutely no indications of stickings or roll rates. It's up to the player to decide.

Yes, and most of the other snare books (Whaley, Cirone) I have don't indicate stickings or rates, which tended to frustrate my rigid mind.

Out of the Whaley book "Musical Studies for the Intermediate Snare Drummer," there is a note above one of the pieces and it states; "This study primarily deals primarily with rolls of varying duration. In concert band or orchestral drumming, rolls are not measured. The desried effect is a continuous sound." (my emphasis).
I took this to mean, with slower tempos you're going to have to use more notes and quicker tempos less notes, i.e., different stickings. But in either case, to make it a 'long sound' to the concluding note, that suits the tempo. Most of the snare books I have just sit on the shelf, I have instead favored books like Joel Rothman's 'Rolls, Rolls, Rolls" because it takes a very 'measured' approach, or very specific duration for the rolls used in his studies. Much easier for my noodle to comprehend!!!


Just to add to the refernces in the thread....
I don't own the book, (& too afraid to click on a web-based PDF) but I did see this in the Amazon 'preview' of Norman Weinberg's "Guide to Standard Drumset Notation" on abbreviated notes (slashes).

" Rhythmic Abbreviations: An abbreviation consists of a note with one or more oblique slashes drawn through the stem, or centered above or below a whole note. The note indicates the total duration of the abbreviation and the slashes indicate the note values of the abbreviation. "

I found this reference based on Weinberg's 'standards,' which is a bit hard to read, so here's a link (see page 7): Guide to Drum & Percussion Notation (mit.edu)

 

[toddbishop]

While were on Wilcoxon and 7's, I always wondered why he wrote some 7 stroke rolls in a tradional fashion, where you started and finshed with different hands, and others as starting and ending with the same hand.
My 'inflexible' mind always wrestled with this, obviously favoring the tradional variant. Was Wilcoxon just offering an additional challenge or ..... what am I missing?

See the examples from All American Drummer Solo 61 for a tradional 7-stroke roll and Solo 66 for the same hand variant.


View attachment 530251

View attachment 530252

The first one I would play with a 16th note triplet pulsation; the second with a 16th note pulsation-- accent on the 1, doubles on the e&a. Normally today that would be notated like this:

I don't think traditional rudimental guys were all that strong with their rhythm-- a lot of them probably played both things the same way-- either way. Even as an accidental septuplet, by dropping in the first left hand double too soon.

To be fair, my buddy Charlie indicated "7str" above that sticking and I always assumed that meant a roll.
But it doesn't make sense to 'drag' into a roll and it is akward to end that roll with the third stoke accent using the same hand.
But, with the clarification by poco rit. it becomes clear to me that Charlie does mean a 7-stroke 'ruff' ** and is confirmed with the the begining and end note being produced by the same hand. Also it's much easier and practical to 'drag' into that 7-stroke ruff as indicated.

If that was a 7-stroke roll starting on the "e' of 1, I think the notation would be quite different, like this example below...


View attachment 530264


**Rolls being produced by alternating double strokes and ruffs produced by alternating single strokes.

That dragged 5 stroke roll notation is an archaic thing-- I guess they thought drummers were too dumb to be able to figure out the 16th-dotted-8th notation above. Or they didn't know any better themselves. There's a lot of weird crap notation in the book Rolling in Rhythm as well. Especially the Richard Sakal editions. You just have to look at what's indicated and figure it out.

I wrote a couple of blog posts on notational weirdness in CW, including the 7 stroke rolls.