The current official 40 standard international drum rudiments from PAS, & what's wrong with them...

Don't get me wrong! - I have the highest respect for rudiments, and in fact an emphasis on rudiments has been the foundation of my playing and teaching for over 20 years. The PAS presentation of the standard 40 though is not well done in my opinion. We need changes to which rudiments are included - the order in which they are presented - the way they are written - and in some cases the way they are named.

NOTE: It has been pointed out to me by representative of the Percussive Arts Society that throughout this article I am referring to the abbreviated chart which is available for download at www.pas.org - there is a bigger and more complete version of the rudiments which is published by Alfred which those representatives feel we would be better off using. Well that is a fair call. I would point out however that the abbreviated version which the PAS actually make available should really present the rudiments in their most simple, logical, and fundamental version - certainly the rudiments should actually include the same notes in both versions which it seems they don't always. I would also point out that it seems quite likely that there is a far greater number of drummers around the world working from this abbreviated version, than from the bigger version from Alfred. It would be an interesting statistic to see how many drummers even KNOW about the bigger version.

A. SINGLE STROKE ROLL RUDIMENTS
1. SINGLE STROKE ROLL
2. SINGLE STROKE FOUR
3. SINGLE STROKE SEVEN

1. The Single Stroke Roll. Well here there are no problems - PAS got it perfect. It's expressed well and deserves it's place as number 1.

3. The Single Stroke Seven. Whilst I have no problems with this rudiment as such, I don't feel it needs to be included as a standard rudiment. It does not present anything new - either musically or technically - that is not already present in the single stroke roll. We could have a single stroke 10 or a single stroke 13 for that matter but we don't as it would be pointless. A group of seven is also pointless as from a technical perspective you need to approach it exactly the same way as the single stroke roll. We actually have the same issue with double stroke roll rudiments, but more on that later. Like many rudiments that I feel have issues - it's not that the pattern of notes does not appear very regularly in rudimental repertoire - the single stroke 7 certainly does - it's more that practising it as an independent rudiment involves nothing different.

2. The Single Stroke Four. There is a reasonable argument to include this rudiment as one of the standards. Because it only uses two notes from each hand, it shares some technical attributes with double strokes. To play it quickly, most drummers think of it as a double stroke action with both hands, but with the strokes interleved. Because of this however, I feel it should be ordered AFTER the double strokes. It's current position as a member of the single-stroke family is not unreasonable though.

Also - Why is it written twice? There is a format to the way rudiments are written. Rudiments who's sticking patterns automatically alternate the hands are written twice on one line, with the alternate hand pattern under the second one. Rudiments who's sticking patterns automatically come back to the same hand need to be practised two seperate ways - starting with the right, and starting with the left. These are written once only with the sticking patterns BOTH written under the notes. For some reason PAS have tried to do both with this rudiment.... It would be simpler and less confusing if it were expressed like so:

2. SINGLE STROKE FOUR

Certainly in no way can I see the logic in placing triple strokes before double strokes! That's like competing in a high-jump competition and starting with the bar high & working your way down! Sure I can see they wanted it in category B so they put it first, but category C should be BEFORE category anyway - and more to the point - why do we need those categories at all? In my opinion what we should see is, something like this:

You could put the single stroke four after the double strokes as it is really a combination of those ideas, but I feel it is better placed after the measured rolls - (5-stroke, 6-stroke etc.) The reason is that these are not a "combination" of stroke ideas like the single stroke four, and also much easier to learn and play from a technical point of view.

Want to just get started with the revised rudiments right away?

FREE copy of the New Rudiments! First name E-mail address

Now don't misunderstand me - I have nothing against the measured rolls. They form an important part of the rudiment family - no question. The concept of "short" bursts of measured double strokes is useful in many ways.

Do we really need to memorize numbers of strokes above say nine though? I cetainly did in my early days and can instantly play a fifteen or seventeen stroke on demand - or a 101-stroke roll for that matter... where does it end? When I'm reading a piece of music and come accross a 17-stroke roll, I certainly don't think about counting to 17 strokes - rather I simply think about playing a measured roll for the length of the minum (half note). (plus of course the extra single stroke on the end)

I propose to cut the measured rolls above the nine-stroke.
In terms of understanding and physical action the higher numbers present nothing new.

Now for the next problem. Once again PAS have written some of the rudiments twice when they are really only needed once. No major crime of course but younger students find it less confusing if a rudiment is pared back to it's fundamental pattern. In the case of the 6-stroke, 7-stroke, 10-stroke, 11-stroke & 17-stroke rolls - they don't swap leading hands between repetitions so writing them more than once is unnecessary and confusing for beginners.

The six-stroke above, SHOULD look like the one below.

And one more problem.
Why is the 6-stroke roll the only rudiment which is written in its inverted form. No other measured roll is written starting with a single stroke... Not even the 10-stroke roll which follows the same principle of two single strokes on the end. Now it may very well be true that the six-stroke roll is more commonly played in the inverted form - although in my opinion it's pretty common in both forms - but it's certainly not logical to make it the only one written that way for standarsization purposes. Now all these rolls are presented in various forms in the greater Alfred version of the rudiments - and rightfully so as they are used very often in varied forms throughout much repertoire. In fact it might be argued that the five stroke roll is more commonly used with its last note falling on the beat - I don't KNOW this but its seems quite likely. My point is that the presentation of the rolls in this abbreviated documant should conform to a standard, and currently the six-stroke roll is the odd man out.

SO what I propose is a list of measured roll rudiments which looks something like this:

There are a few issues with this family though.

Firstly let's look at naming the category "DIDDLE RUDIMENTS". To me it seems not specific enough. Double stroke rolls and all those measured rolls could also come under any heading named "diddle rudiments". Why? Well because a "diddle" is essentially a double stroke. We have the paradiddle with the "para" as the singles and the "diddle" as the double stroke on the end. The paradiddlediddle is named using an extra diddle because it has an extra double... so to be strictly accurate this family should be named after its founder. They should be called "PARADIDDLE RUDIMENTS". After all - as I'll explain shortly - the "para" part is actually more fundamental and important to the paradiddle than the "diddle" part.

Incidently the "single paradiddle-diddle" is another rudiment which needs no adjustment at all - although as with the "single paradiddle" I'm not sure quite why the word "single" is required in the name. Nobody really uses the word "single" when talking about them - although of course it is indeed descriptively accurate, and doesn't really hurt...

The double and triple paradiddle however, I feel are expressed incorrectly. They don't have enough accents!

Now let me be clear here. It seems the greater Alfred version of the rudiments actually has these extra accents on the double and triple paradiddles, but for some reason they are not present in the more common abbreviated version. Also it is interesting to note, the original versions in the NARD 13 then 26 official rudiments also had them printed this way - without the extra accents. However with only a single accent per hand there is really no reason for employing these sticking patterns at all!

Some of you may automatically disagree with me on this but hear me out... What is different between the double paradiddle and the paradiddlediddle other than the sticking pattern. Nothing! So what possible benefit is there from using a double paradiddle over a paradiddlediddle. NONE! The paradiddlediddle is superior in every way. No - it's not like say the difference between flam taps and inverted flam taps, where they are musically the same but one has superior speed attributes and the other has superior attributes for dynamic control - NO - the paradiddle-diddle beats the double paradiddle in every way! Well except if you want that extra accent of course.

Now I do agree that all drummers should be familiar enough with these rudiments to play them with one, two, three or even zero accents. There is also no doubt that various alternative versions of these sticking patterns are common throughout the repertoire. I strongly feel however that the fundamental version of these rudiments should be WITH the extra accents.

The picture to the right shows the extra accents which most rudimental drummers learn as the correct way of playing these rudiments anyway.

Now some drummers may be thinking that a good reason for employing these sticking patterns - or those of any other rudiment - is not so much for the accents, but as a superior way to get between the elements of a drum kit. Well in one way you are correct. You CAN play ALL of the paradiddle rudiments without any accents at all, and indeed they can be very useful on a drum kit. But don't forget that these rudiments were in existence long before there was any such thing as a drum kit!

Quite seriously - the whole point - and the only point - of using single strokes at all with this type of rudiment is to make the accents easier.

For those who are interested there is a whole bunch of very detailed information on this very subject in my book Stick Technique.

There are also a few paradiddle rudiments missing!

Rudiment number 35 is the dragadiddle. To me this seems a strange place for it when it's not really based on a "drag" at all! (by the old or new definition) Sure we can see that it's called that because of the double stroke at the start so I can at least understand the naming of this rudiment, but its position really belongs right here - immediately after the paradiddlediddle. It really is only a very slightly modified parididdle. I would also propose to get rid of the shorthand notation used to write this rudiment as it makes it unclear to some whether both notes of the double stroke are accented or just the first. For the record - the common interpretation is just the first.

Even though it's not listed in the standard rudiments at all - I feel the "dragadiddle-diddle" should be next. If you can have a "dragadiddle" based on a paradiddle then it's easy to imagine a "dragadiddle-diddle" based on a "paradiddle-diddle".

Finally I would suggest also including as part of this paradiddle family two newer rudiments which are officially recognized, but not as part of the standard 40. These are the "diddle-egg-5" and the "diddle-egg-7". These rudiments actually add something to the family of rudiments unlike the endlessly increasing stroke numbers of the measured rolls, and they are quite relevant to modern drummers.

Have a look at these rudiments NOW with the Revised Rudiments pdf.

FREE copy of the New Rudiments! First name E-mail address

The PAS standard rudiments lists 10 flam rudiments. – fair enough, it's a very important family.

But.... the order they are listed in... well I can't see any logic behind it no matter how hard I look. It puts the simple ones after the more complex ones. Let's have a look at the current standard:

The first is the simple "Flam". OK - no problems there - that is the obvious choice.

The second however, is the "flam accent" - a very strange choice! Clearly the "flam tap" should be the second rudiment as it is essentially a 2-note pattern where the "flam accent" is a 3-note pattern which also requires a more complex technical movement.

Number 3 SHOULD be the "inverted flam tap" - just one degree more complex. The "inverted flam tap" is exactly the same 2-note pattern as the regular "flam tap", but with the same more complex technical movement that the "flam accent" requires.

The "flam accent" of course should be number four on the list. After all it is essentially identical to the "inverted flam tap", but with an extra 'tap' for each hand alternation.

The next rudiment on the list could be either the "Swiss army triplet" (usually reffered to simply as the "Swiss Triplet"), OR the "flam drag". Either of these would make sense as they are both very similar to the preceding "flam accent". The "Swiss triplet" is musically identical but uses a different sticking pattern, whereas the "flam drag" uses an essentially identical sticking pattern, but the second note of each group is turned into a double stroke. I personally feel that this similarity of technical movement is more important, so I would place the "flam drag" on the list as number five, and the "Swiss triplet" as number six.

At position seven - the "flam paradiddle" seems the logical choice. It's a very simple rudiment for those who are already familiar with the paradiddle. If you are sudying the rudiments in this revised order as you should, then you will be. It is also only one step further along than the "flam accent". Essentially it is a "flam accent" with an extra 'tap' on the end of each hand alternation.

One might argue that the "single flammed mill" should be next as it is simply a kind of inverted "flam paradiddle". I'm not going to though. I'm going to argue that the "single flammed mill" should be scrapped altogether! It is a sticking pattern devised purely because it is a possibility - not because it is in any way helpful or efficient. I can see absolutely no way that the musically identical "flam paradiddle" is not superior to the "single flammed mill". Of course we do see the single flammed mill in historical rudimental repertoire - although way less than one might imagine. And rightfully so, as it is never a better choice than the flam paradiddle.

Instead, let's put the "flam paradiddle-diddle" next in line. It's a simple 2-note addition to the "flam paradiddle"

Now I'm going to propose the addition of two new rudiments to the standard set. Just like I proposed that the dragadiddle and the dragadiddle-diddle come after the current paradiddle rudiments, it seems fitting to apply the same logic here. We've just listed the "flam paradiddle-diddle" so lets have next the "flam dragadiddle" and the "flam dragadiddle-diddle".

The "pataflafla" should be next with its unique double accent.

The "pataflafla" is to the "flam accent" what the "diddle egg 5" is to the "single paradiddle". (If you are unsure of what a "diddle-egg" rudiment is then it's best to download the free pdf and find out!) I mention this because it seems we could use the same ordering logic we used with the paradiddle rudiments here as well. This means the next rudiment on the list would be a "flammed diddle egg 5" then a "flammed diddle egg 7". (These are names I made up which seem to fit - I'm not sure if these rudiments already oficially exist or already have official names.)

Last on the list - certainly not least - would be the "flamacue". This is a truly unique flam rudiment. It requires a different technical approach to all the other flam rudiments for a few reasons, but mostly because the flams are unaccented and there is an accented regular note.

With the order improved what about expressing them better?

If you study the "flam tap", "pataflafla", "Swiss triplet" & "inverted flam tap", you will discover that they all have the pattern written twice without it being necessary. This is not a huge problem at all, but it does really simplify things to have the pattern just once. I have particularly found that with much younger students their comprehension is much quicker when they only see the pattern once.

As it IS

As it SHOULD BE

This is also the case for the "flam paradiddle-diddle" only this time it involves a serious error in logic! The "flam paradiddle-diddle" is writen as if it were a rudiment which alternated from one hand to the other. Why should it do this? A paradiddle-diddle without the flam does not alternate hands and every other paradiddle rudiment extended with flams leaves the essential sticking pattern unchanged except for the addition of the flam. Why would this one be different? Answer... It isn't - it is written with no logical follow on from the parent rudiment. I feel it should be written just the one time with the alternate sticking pattern underneath!

It HAS been pointed out to me that many find the flam-paradiddle-diddle in its current form (what I would call inverted) actually easier to play than the form which I am suggesting. I can certainly see how that can be the case, and it is indeed true that there is much repertoire written that involves the flam paradiddle-diddle with its current alternating sticking pattern. To me this is not a good reason to present it as the standard. The name should be based on the logic of the parent rudiment. I feel we should either present the rudiment written differently OR simply present it as is, and NAME it the "inverted flam-paradiddle-diddle".

Another slightly bewildering error, is that the "pataflafla" is written only leading with the right hand! There is no left hand leading alternate written underneath. There SHOULD be.

See How Flam Rudiments SHOULD be in the Revised Rudiments pdf.

FREE copy of the New Rudiments! First name E-mail address

There are some problems with the drag family of rudiments as well. Partially with which rudiments are chosen to be here at all, but mostly with the completely illogical names given to the patterns. In these cases as you will see, it is not so much a problem with the names, but mostly it's the actual rudiments themselves which I feel need to be changed to fit those names.

In fact, I'm not 100% convinced that the "drag" family needs to include so many rudiments. The way the drag-tap variations and the drag-parididdle variations currently stand, they are not really proper rudiments to my mind - more a rudiment with some extra notes stuck on. One could even perhaps say the same about the ratamacue family... do we actually need all three? Couldn't we just describe those notes as two drags then a ratamacue? Well perhaps we can let these ones go, but even if we change the patterns to more accurately reflect their names, it is perhaps still not adding much new to include them. Instead I think we can get the general idea of expansion from the flam family and move on to include something genuinely important - like the "four stroke ruff", which is a natural progression from the flam then drag.

So let's look at the drag family...

the "DRAG" - originally called a "RUFF"

the "SINGLE DRAG TAP" - originally called a "DRAG"

The first in this family is fine. In fact either the old name or the new name makes perfect sense. The old name sounds like the rudiment, and the new name (at least in a beginner type of way) describes the required motion.

With the second drag rudiment - the name makes no sense at all - at least that I can see! Even under the old label - "drag" - it doesn't really describe the rudiment well at all. Under the new label - "drag tap" - you can kind of see where the name is coming from, but it is completely out of format with the flam rudiments. For a start, the accents are on the second note of the group, not the first. Not only is this opposite to the "flam tap" in sound, but how can you describe an 'accent' as a 'tap'? Really the wrong word! Not only that, but also the 'accent' or 'tap' or whatever we are calling it, is played with the wrong hand! If you compare it to a "flam tap" the sticking pattern is inverted.

Now - once again don't misunderstand me - I have nothing against this particular pattern of notes, but why call it a "drag tap" when that name should so clearly belong to a completely different pattern?

The "New" Drag Tap

I'm not convinced this actual pattern warrants a position in the standard set, but if it does - put it down lower, and call it something appropriate. I believe the drag rudiments should follow a similar format and order to the flam rudiments. Number two on the list should be called the "drag tap", but the actual pattern should look like the pattern to the right:

The current "Double Drag Tap

Currently rudiment 33 is the "double drag tap" which has similar issues to the "single drag tap". The "double drag" bit is fair enough, but once again the word "tap" is misplaced and confusing. In my opinion this rudiment should be renamed to something that makes better sense, then removed completely from the standard rudiments. I'm not saying that once renamed, it shouldn't be an official rudiment... simply that it doesn't really warrant being listed as one of the fundamental ones.

I don't have too many problems with this rudiment at all. I'm not sure where the name comes from, but it least it doesn't imply a pattern different to the one written. The rudiment itself is also a good candidate for inclusion - it's a unique and nifty little pattern with no extra "fluff". We can reasonably call it a fundamental rudiment. The only thing I would do differently is not write it twice - yep it's another one written more than necessary.

At position 35 we have the dragadiddle (no reason to say 'single'). As already discussed this rudiment doeasn't really belong in the "drag" family. Sure it has a quick double stroke, but it is nothing like a drag! They are not grace notes, and one is even accented! This rudiment is nothing more than a slightly modified paradiddle, and as previously stated, belongs with the paradiddle family.

With the "drag paradiddle" we see another case of a rudiment name which implies a different pattern. A "flam paradiddle" is simply a paradiddle with the first note flammed, so a "drag paradiddle" should be simply a paradiddle with the first note 'dragged'. Even if we consider that the current "drag tap" used to be called the "drag" - it still doesn't make sense because the accented single note this time comes before the main part of the rudiment.

I really quite like the actual pattern that is currently called the "drag paradiddle", but that extra note is really just a tacked on addition to the fundamental combo. For the name to make sense, the "drag paradiddle" should look like this:

The "drag paradiddle" should look like this.

This in itself is a bit of a ridiculous pattern though and probably shouldn't be high on any drummer's list to practise for its own sake. It is however quite useful and commonnly used one half at a time. It's a pattern best in context rather than isolation, so perhaps it should not be included as part of the fundamental set.

To my mind the original "drag paradiddle" pattern should be included in the standard set BUT it needs to be both re-named AND modified. I propose the name to be "Accent drag paradiddle", and to modify the pattern to include accents after the grace notes of the drag to preserve the accuracy of the 'paradiddle' part. We would end up with this:

The proposed 'Accent Drag Paradiddle'

Here we have the extended version - the "drag paradiddle #2". Given the thought process above, this is a bit pointless and doesn't really add anything new. Sure we could modify it with an extra accent just as we did immediately above, and perhaps re-name it the "Accent double drag paradiddle" - although even that would not be strictly descriptively accurate... BUT in any case, I don't feel it needs to be included as a fundamental rudiment. It's simply the previous rudiment with a bit more added fluff - an extra drag.

The last three current standard rudiments are the ratamacues. I don't really have any problems with these. They are named well - according to the sound they produce.

One could argue that the double and triple ratamacues are not really so fundamental - indeed just like with the "drag paradiddle" rudiments above, we are really just sticking an extra drag or two onto the basic pattern.

It's not terrible to include the double and triple ratamacues, but not strictly speaking necessary.

See How Drag Rudiments SHOULD be in the Revised Rudiments pdf.

FREE copy of the New Rudiments! First name E-mail address

With all the modifications I've suggested - including removing some rudiments and adding others - we are a little short of 40. That was expected and kind of intentional.

There are a few extra drag rudiments that I've proposed for the standard 40 which seem to make more sense to me. I've also never understood why the "4-stroke ruff" was not included in the standard 40 - it's such an important and fundamental rudiment - despite its similarity to the "single stroke 4". In my proposed revision of the standard 40 rudiments, it comes in at number 40. Even though in many ways it's a much simpler rudiment than the lower numbers, it follows the natural progression from flam to drag to four-stroke ruff.

If this web page has given you food for thought, then don't forget to get your free copy of the "NEW REVISED DRUM RUDIMENTS" from one of the orange boxes above. If you want to get hold of some REALLY detailed information and ideas about how to approach rudiments, and rudimental technique - then why not check out my book on the subject - STICK TECHNIQUE. Drum Technique Clinician B.Mus (Hons) M. Mus(perf)