Yamaha DTXpress/DTXplorer/DTXtreme

--- In DTXpress@yahoogroups.com, "brown8700" <brown8700@a...> wrote:
> Joe:
> I am not, repeat, NOT, saying that e-drums are not drums. (does a 
> triple-negative statement make a positive statement?)
> Lionel Hampton a drummer? You bet! Had you ever seen him play a 
kit? 
> He wasn't just a mallet man. I'm proud to say that Mr. Hampton 
hailed 
> from my hometown of Louisville, KY.
> Future Man a drummer? I don't know, I guess. He strikes things in a 
> rythmic-percussive manner that make a drum-like sound. And, I'm 
proud 
> to say that Bela Fleck hails from my home state of Kentucky. Not 
sure 
> about Future Man, though.
> Now, the next question is "would a Linn-Drum programmer be 
considered 
> a drummer?"

I thought this would heat up--in a good way--given the variables. But 
I think that everyone agrees that anything that's hit in a musical or 
purely percussive context qualifies as a "drum"--electronic drums 
qualify with distinction--unless the context dictates that the label 
be withheld for explanatory reasons: "What's Herschel playing at the 
back of the stage?  Is that a drum?  No, it's a garbage can." 
Electronic drums are not "real" drums only to the extent that they 
invite direct comparison with their acoustic counterparts: "Was 
someone playing Slingerlands on that cut?" "No, that was definitely a 
DTXpress programmed to sound like real Slingerlands." 

One empirical question is whether education on an e-kit is an 
adequate substitute for education on an a-kit. I don't think that 
anyone thinks that the two situations are a perfect match, though 
people may disagree about the extent of the mismatch, though both 
instruments are drums. 

Another empirical question, with defintite semantic overtones, is how 
does one qualify to be a "drummer." The easy, and often true, answer 
is by playing drums with some method to the madness. But in a context 
that intends to discriminate between abilities, or activities, the 
answer might not be so easy. Any definition runs the risk of 
arbitrariness. "Drummer" can be a relative title of honor. If you 
asked Buddy Rich whether Ringo is a drummer, he'd unequivocably 
say "no." But Buddy Rich might also say, "Look at that guy over there 
playing those copper pots. Now, there's a drummer." Skill in a 
percussive context also enters into someone's ascription of the term. 
Whether people agree in any given circumstance might boil down to 
whether they are "drummers" themselves, whether they are open-minded, 
etc. Buddy Rich might ultimately reserve his judgment: "But I'd like 
to see him behind a kit plaing with a big band before I give him my 
blessing," whereas we might say, "why bother? That guy has great 
hands." 

The Linn-drum programmer is not a "drummer" in the context of the 
DTXpress Group, in which members discuss drumming by using sticks 
ultimately to create sound. But in a wider framework, as someone who 
creates percussive accompaniment in a musical setting, the Linn 
technician certainly falls within the broad family of drummers, 
especially if he also knows how to play "real" drums and uses that 
knowledge to good effect in his programming.  

One thing to keep in mind is that language works best within 
circumscribed contexts that contain other less ambiguous cues. When 
words have to do all of the work themselves, they are subject to 
failure. (Vern reminded me once that when I want to make sure that 
what I say comes off as a joke, I should use an emoticon.) Words are 
not vehicles of absolute meaning. One person's/moment's "drummer" is 
another person's hack, beginner, or eccentric. Do we set up a 
committee to determine who the "real drummers" are? We get along 
quite well without one, I think.

Ed