Every now and then when I find something interesting, I'll share my thoughts. Today I'm going to yammer on about my 6.5 x 14 Pork Pie Brass snare drum in the Pork Rub finish. If you're not a drummer this would be a good time to catch up on your e-mails.
First of all I have to say this: I generally do not care for brass snare drums. I’ve owned a handful of various makes and models and usually tire of them quickly. They are great for cutting through a mass of volume but, these days, they sound too harsh and brittle to my worn out ears.
But . . .
There is an exception to every rule and I may have found a brass snare drum that has something to offer other than a tenacious high-end snap.
The first thing that appealed to me about this Pork Pie snare was the funky, antique looking finish. The smoky brown finish on the beaded shell brings to mind an old leather chair or a glass of serious whiskey (with an “e”). Bill Detamore has a reputation for beautiful and often quite unique drum finishes and the Pork Rub finish continues that tradition.
Along with the patina finish the drum sports the usual tube lugs, ten of them to be exact, a no nonsense side-throw snare strainer/butt assembly, a pair of 2.3mm triple-flanged hoops and what looks to be a set of 22 or 24 strand brass snares.
So, how does it sound?
Right out of the box, with a coated Ambassador batter head tuned medium tight it produced a big, throaty sound with plenty of high end. Dare I say the drum sounded a little darker than I expected? Maybe there is something to that finish besides good looks?
Tuned up a bit higher the decay shortened up a little and the brassy qualities started to come into play although without the annoying “ping” that I usually hear with a tightly tensioned brass snare drum. It was when I started turning the tension rods counter-clockwise that the drum disappointed somewhat. It became muddy and thick even when there was still some tension on the head.
So it was time to try something different. First up was a different batter head. A new Vintage Ambassador, which are slightly thicker than the standard model, improved the sound of the drum at lower tunings quite a bit without sacrificing the pleasing qualities I heard at other tunings. I could live with this set up quite happily but I had a few other things to play with.
I don’t care for thick hoops and I can’t stand die cast hoops. I think they make the drums feel stiff and can make certain drums, mainly snare drums, sound boxy. I put a set of 1.6 mm hoops on this drum and replaced the brass wires with a generic set of "snappy snare" wires and the difference was night and day. All of a sudden the whole drum opened up and all those wonderful overtones, all that snotty clang and clatter I love in a snare drum revealed themselves. Now I really had something to work with!
I’ve used the drum in a pretty wide variety of applications including a dreaded outdoor gig that normally makes everything sound flat and dull. The drum always delivered a great sound with a wide variety of sticks, brushes and rods. Rim shots were clear and easy to articulate and the drum sounded open and full no matter where you played on the head.
So, in short, a real gem and a keeper.
P. S. (I wonder, what would an eight-lug, 5.5x14 with straight hoops sound like?) :)
Tuesday, November 11, 2014
Tuesday, November 4, 2014
I voted today.
I voted today. I'm not bragging or patting myself on the back. I don't buy the "if you don't vote you can't complain" argument because I think that while some people don't vote because they are lazy or saddled with inertia, others use their non-participation as a vote of no confidence or, more bluntly, a way to say "Fuck You" to the whole damaged process.
And I'll admit, I'm really close to being one of those people.
I vaguely recall a time when voting was a positive process, you actually voted for someone or something. "Yes! I want you to represent me! Yes, I like that plan, let's do it!" Now I find myself voting against things with little in the way of a credible alternative. It's kind of like deciding if I'd rather have twenty pounds of mud dumped on me or twenty pounds of horseshit. Either way, I'm gonna need a shower and that's how I feel after voting these days.
The entire system is a train wreck from top to bottom and anyone opting to participate deserves to be treated with a measure of distrust and suspicion. It's like seeing your local preacher walking into a porn emporium. Yeah, he might just need change for the parking meter but smart money says he's stocking up on latex and screw goo.
And even if the really good guys and gals get a handle on the process and manage to find a way to maneuver around the corruption and partisan bullshit, they can't possibly work for the common good because there is no common good anymore. We're a nitwit nation each blessed at birth with God-given rights and entitlements and we will have our way regardless of how it impacts others around us.
Compromise? That's for losers.
Compassion? Kiss my ass.
Consideration? Fuck you.
It's convenient to blame the politicians (and, to be sure, they deserve plenty of blame) but in a way they are doing exactly what they are supposed to do: They are representing the majority and the majority of us are fucking self-centered twats.
Now, if you'll excuse me, I have to take a shower.
And I'll admit, I'm really close to being one of those people.
I vaguely recall a time when voting was a positive process, you actually voted for someone or something. "Yes! I want you to represent me! Yes, I like that plan, let's do it!" Now I find myself voting against things with little in the way of a credible alternative. It's kind of like deciding if I'd rather have twenty pounds of mud dumped on me or twenty pounds of horseshit. Either way, I'm gonna need a shower and that's how I feel after voting these days.
The entire system is a train wreck from top to bottom and anyone opting to participate deserves to be treated with a measure of distrust and suspicion. It's like seeing your local preacher walking into a porn emporium. Yeah, he might just need change for the parking meter but smart money says he's stocking up on latex and screw goo.
And even if the really good guys and gals get a handle on the process and manage to find a way to maneuver around the corruption and partisan bullshit, they can't possibly work for the common good because there is no common good anymore. We're a nitwit nation each blessed at birth with God-given rights and entitlements and we will have our way regardless of how it impacts others around us.
Compromise? That's for losers.
Compassion? Kiss my ass.
Consideration? Fuck you.
It's convenient to blame the politicians (and, to be sure, they deserve plenty of blame) but in a way they are doing exactly what they are supposed to do: They are representing the majority and the majority of us are fucking self-centered twats.
Now, if you'll excuse me, I have to take a shower.
Saturday, November 1, 2014
A Tall Tale.
One of the more popular topics in drum geek lore involves two very
influential drummers, both of whom have earned a place in drumming
history.
One of those drummers you may have heard of: A guy by the name of Ringo Starr. He used to play in a band called Wings . . . whoops . . . strike that, he was in a band called The Beatles which was the band Paul McCartney was in before Wings. (And if I have to explain who Paul McCartney is you probably shouldn’t be reading this).
The other drummer is a fella by the name of Bernard Purdie. Mr. Purdie is a very successful studio musician with an impressive list of credits to his name. Even if you exclude his exemplary work with Aretha Franklin, James Brown, King Curtis, Steely Dan and countless others, his place in the history books is cemented with his popularization of the Purdie Shuffle drum beat. This distinctive beat has been utilized by everyone from John Bonham (“Fool In The Rain” by Led Zepellin, a song they might have actually wrote instead of plagiarized), Jeff Porcaro (“Rossana” by Toto) and, more recently, Jason McGerr (“Grapevine Fires” by Death Cab for Cutie).
Unfortunately Bernard will also be remembered for his claims that he was secretly hired to replace Ringo on as many as 21 early Beatle recordings and was paid a large sum of money to keep his mouth shut. As near as I can tell Bernard first made this claim in Max Weinberg’s book “The Big Beat” which was originally published in 1984. When pressed for details Bernard plays coy and insists he is keeping the details secret until he writes his book, which will reveal all and make him oodles of money. (But Bernard, weren’t you well paid to keep your mouth shut?)
So, what’s wrong with this picture?
If nothing else it demonstrates that one does not want to pay Bernard Purdie to keep his mouth shut but there are other, more practical reasons to doubt Bernard’s ludicrous story.
Doubt #1)
Up until The Beatles recorded “The Beatles” (AKA: “The White Album”) in 1968, they were working on four-track recording technology with the earliest recordings captured on two track machines. EMI, their recording company and owners of EMI/Abbey Road studios, were notoriously tight-fisted and shortsighted and the studio was saddled with outdated technology for most of the Beatles’ recording career. There are a small handful of well-documented Beatle songs with other drummers, basically Andy White one on song and Paul “Do-it-All” McCartney on a few others, but Bernard’s name appears nowhere in the exhaustively researched history of Beatle recording sessions.
Recording to two or four tracks requires that multiple instruments be recorded on one track or one section of the tape. As a result you might have the entire rhythm section (bass, guitar, piano, drums) on one track and the rest of the performances on the other track(s).
And here is where Bernard’s story begins to unravel a bit since it would be impossible to replace Ringo’s drum track without replacing everything else on that track as well. Now, one can argue that Ringo’s abilities easy to replace and improve (I don’t buy that argument, by the way) but the other Beatles had very distinctive playing styles so if Bernard replaced Ringo’s work, who replaced George, John and Paul’s work?
At the very most someone could have augmented Ringo’s playing by bouncing the existing tracks to a single track and recording drums or percussion on the open track. That makes no sense because Ringo’s supposedly poor playing would still be evident along with the “better” playing by Bernard and anyone who has ever recorded knows you rarely improve a performance by throwing more stuff on top of it, especially a rhythm track.
Doubt #2)
Remember EMI and their tight-fisted ways? When the Beatles were first signed to EMI, pop music was considered cheap and disposable and the Beatles were so far down the list that they were shuttled off to the budget Parlaphone imprint. Why would EMI agree to throw good money after bad to fix the drum tracks on a crummy little pop band recording? Twenty-one times. And even if they did make that decision, why would they go to the trouble and expense to have this work done in the US by an American drummer when there were plenty of capable studio drummers in London and probably even some already on the EMI payroll.
There are two plausible explanations left.
One.
The biggest stretch is that Bernard was hired to augment some old and/or obscure Beatle recordings by other labels looking to cash in on the band’s early success. This scenario has quite a few serious complications but, to give Bernard the benefit of the doubt, let’s at least consider it.
Two.
Bernard Purdie ran his mouth a wee bit faster than his brain. Once the story got out his ego wouldn’t let him admit his fib and he continued to fuel the flames by insisting that it was true.
I'm apt to go with door number two. It seems Bernard Purdie is not content with his own tremendous legacy and feels the need to take extra with this absurd story. It doesn't lessen his great contributions to our drumming lexicon and he isn't the only studio musician taking credit for someone else's work, but it is a sad character flaw that will dog him for a very long time.
One of those drummers you may have heard of: A guy by the name of Ringo Starr. He used to play in a band called Wings . . . whoops . . . strike that, he was in a band called The Beatles which was the band Paul McCartney was in before Wings. (And if I have to explain who Paul McCartney is you probably shouldn’t be reading this).
The other drummer is a fella by the name of Bernard Purdie. Mr. Purdie is a very successful studio musician with an impressive list of credits to his name. Even if you exclude his exemplary work with Aretha Franklin, James Brown, King Curtis, Steely Dan and countless others, his place in the history books is cemented with his popularization of the Purdie Shuffle drum beat. This distinctive beat has been utilized by everyone from John Bonham (“Fool In The Rain” by Led Zepellin, a song they might have actually wrote instead of plagiarized), Jeff Porcaro (“Rossana” by Toto) and, more recently, Jason McGerr (“Grapevine Fires” by Death Cab for Cutie).
Unfortunately Bernard will also be remembered for his claims that he was secretly hired to replace Ringo on as many as 21 early Beatle recordings and was paid a large sum of money to keep his mouth shut. As near as I can tell Bernard first made this claim in Max Weinberg’s book “The Big Beat” which was originally published in 1984. When pressed for details Bernard plays coy and insists he is keeping the details secret until he writes his book, which will reveal all and make him oodles of money. (But Bernard, weren’t you well paid to keep your mouth shut?)
So, what’s wrong with this picture?
If nothing else it demonstrates that one does not want to pay Bernard Purdie to keep his mouth shut but there are other, more practical reasons to doubt Bernard’s ludicrous story.
Doubt #1)
Up until The Beatles recorded “The Beatles” (AKA: “The White Album”) in 1968, they were working on four-track recording technology with the earliest recordings captured on two track machines. EMI, their recording company and owners of EMI/Abbey Road studios, were notoriously tight-fisted and shortsighted and the studio was saddled with outdated technology for most of the Beatles’ recording career. There are a small handful of well-documented Beatle songs with other drummers, basically Andy White one on song and Paul “Do-it-All” McCartney on a few others, but Bernard’s name appears nowhere in the exhaustively researched history of Beatle recording sessions.
Recording to two or four tracks requires that multiple instruments be recorded on one track or one section of the tape. As a result you might have the entire rhythm section (bass, guitar, piano, drums) on one track and the rest of the performances on the other track(s).
And here is where Bernard’s story begins to unravel a bit since it would be impossible to replace Ringo’s drum track without replacing everything else on that track as well. Now, one can argue that Ringo’s abilities easy to replace and improve (I don’t buy that argument, by the way) but the other Beatles had very distinctive playing styles so if Bernard replaced Ringo’s work, who replaced George, John and Paul’s work?
At the very most someone could have augmented Ringo’s playing by bouncing the existing tracks to a single track and recording drums or percussion on the open track. That makes no sense because Ringo’s supposedly poor playing would still be evident along with the “better” playing by Bernard and anyone who has ever recorded knows you rarely improve a performance by throwing more stuff on top of it, especially a rhythm track.
Doubt #2)
Remember EMI and their tight-fisted ways? When the Beatles were first signed to EMI, pop music was considered cheap and disposable and the Beatles were so far down the list that they were shuttled off to the budget Parlaphone imprint. Why would EMI agree to throw good money after bad to fix the drum tracks on a crummy little pop band recording? Twenty-one times. And even if they did make that decision, why would they go to the trouble and expense to have this work done in the US by an American drummer when there were plenty of capable studio drummers in London and probably even some already on the EMI payroll.
There are two plausible explanations left.
One.
The biggest stretch is that Bernard was hired to augment some old and/or obscure Beatle recordings by other labels looking to cash in on the band’s early success. This scenario has quite a few serious complications but, to give Bernard the benefit of the doubt, let’s at least consider it.
Two.
Bernard Purdie ran his mouth a wee bit faster than his brain. Once the story got out his ego wouldn’t let him admit his fib and he continued to fuel the flames by insisting that it was true.
I'm apt to go with door number two. It seems Bernard Purdie is not content with his own tremendous legacy and feels the need to take extra with this absurd story. It doesn't lessen his great contributions to our drumming lexicon and he isn't the only studio musician taking credit for someone else's work, but it is a sad character flaw that will dog him for a very long time.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
