THE PERPLEXING CAMPAIGN AGAINST THE TRADITIONAL DRUMMING GRIP

During the 1970s, when the “matched grip only” school of thought began to propagate, theoretical arguments were made to support its presumptive superiority. Here are some of those old arguments against traditional grip with counterpoints:

1. You can never achieve a hand-to-hand evenness of sound unless both hands hold the sticks the same way.

Really? If that is true, why do so many matched grip players exhibit such an uneven hand-to-hand sound? The primary reason for unevenness in sound from hand-to-hand is that the strong hand tends to strike with more authority regardless of what grip method is being used. To achieve an even hand-to-hand sound, the same kind of strokes must be played with equal intent and velocity from an even stick height. The bead of the stick from either hand should impact the drum and rebound with controlled and directed energy and not in the manner of a sloppy, glancing ricochet. Evenness can be achieved using a variety of grip methods, including traditional grip. When all components of each stroke are precisely and correctly applied, there will still be differences in left to right sound for the simple reason that the strokes impact the head from opposing angles. A realistic goal is to minimize hand-to-hand sound differences to the least perceivable level. The ability to do that using either matched or traditional grip is equal as long as the strokes are accurately executed.

2. More muscles are used to turn the wrist using an overhand grip than to rotate the forearm with an underhand grip.

Is that true, and if so, who cares? If your body needed “more muscles” to rotate the forearm than it uses to turn the wrist, it would have them. What makes using “more muscles” a good thing anyway? Indeed, using “fewer muscles” is an indication of greater efficiency. Beyond that, wrist turning is not the only muscle groups used to play drum strokes. Many other variables, including the fingers, forearm, and upper arm muscles, are needed to adjust to continually changing musical requirements like dynamics and tempo. 

3. Matched grip is “more natural” than the traditional grip. The observation often follows this statement that when a pair of drum sticks are handed to a child or a non-drummer, the recipient will “naturally” assume the matched grip.

Yes, indeed, a child or a non-drummer will usually grasp drum sticks with something kind of, sort of, like matched grip, but it’s more as if they’re grabbing a hammer than a drum stick; good for pounding nails, but not for drumming. There is nothing unnatural about a mixed underhand and overhand grasp. Violinists hold their instrument with the left hand under the neck while drawing the bow overhand with the right. A guitar is played with the left hand under the neck while picking and strumming with a right overhand. Does anybody believe those hand positions are “unnatural?”

4. Other than the snare drum or drum set, all percussion instruments are played using matched grip: tympani, timbale, vibes, etc.

There is no rebuttal here; that is a pretty darn good argument, but nobody is saying you should not learn or never use a matched grip. Serious percussionists must learn matched grip. Serious percussionists also know that there are secrets to be unlocked by learning traditional grip.

The traditional grip makes you think differently about what you play and how you play it, resulting in a broader understanding of your art. Mastering classical methods with a left underhand technique will enhance your awareness of how strokes need to be played when using the matched grip, too, because you will develop a more universal and intuitive understanding of the physics that underlay the drum strokes.

You can blindly follow the dictates of those who would claim “there is only one way to play” and be done with it. In fairness, perhaps the drummers who make such claims have studied, experimented, and practiced to find that, indeed, the matched grip is the best way for them to play. Even so, does that make it so for everybody?

Inevitably your style, techniques, and creative approach will change over time. Hopefully, you will make an honest effort to explore various methods and make your conclusions through study, practice, and experience.

“If anybody tells you that there’s only one way to hold the drumstick you have to look at them in disbelief. Because there is no more wandering thing than the fulcrum of a hand-hold when you are really playing loud one time and soft another time.” – Jim Chapin

Guide to Identifying a Super-Ludwig 400

by Ed Flack © 2017

According to legend, the Ludwig Supra-Phonic is the “most recorded” snare drum of the 1960s and 1970s. I don’t know if that is true, but it is plausible, and why not? The Supra-Phonic is a great drum, and Ludwig sold a lot of them.

The modern version of this snare drum went into production in 1958 as the “Super-Ludwig.” The first drums, named Super-Ludwig with the original Art Deco lug design, were made available in 1936 using wood shells. The 1958 Super-Ludwig was made of one solid piece of rolled brass formed into a cylinder and welded. By 1962 Ludwig changed the name to “Super-Ludwig 400” (the significance of the number 400 is not known—likely just a marketing gimmick?) The next significant design and name change occurred in 1963 when Ludwig switched from rolled brass to a spun aluminum shell, calling it the “Supra-Phonic 400.” The aluminum shell has no welds, and Ludwig introduced it as the “Acousti-Perfect” shell. At first look, the Super-Ludwig and the Supra-Phonic can be mistaken as the same model drum, yet there are significant differences. Here are some specific features to look for if you want to identify a Super-Ludwig from a Supra-Phonic. 

1. As already referenced, from 1958–1962, the Super-Ludwig was made from a rolled brass and welded shell. After the brass models, the Supra-Phonic shell material was made of spun aluminum with no welds. The evidence is seen in the bubbles, pitting, and excessive chrome peeling from the early Supra-Phonic snares’ surface. Chrome does not adhere well to an aluminum surface, but it works well on brass. Another noticeable characteristic of brass is that it is much heavier than the Acousti-Perfect Ludalloy (aluminum) shell. The Super-Ludwig weighs about 10 pounds.

2. The bearing edge on both brass and aluminum shell models is 45º. These are created by rolling the top and bottom edges inward to form a collar or “flange.” The collar also serves to strengthen the shell and help support and maintain the shell’s circular shape. However, there is a second shorter flange on the Super-Ludwig models at the final edge that curls back and slightly under the primary collar.

3. The famous Ludwig Keystone badge on the brass Super-Ludwig and Super-Ludwig 400 never had a serial number. Conceivably, there may be a very few early Supra-Phonics produced in 1963 that have no serial numbers? But since 1964, all Ludwig snare drums have a serial number on the badge.

4. The Imperial lug casings. This attractive Art Deco design originated in 1935 to commemorate the 25th year “Silver Anniversary” of the Ludwig company. The Super-Ludwig lug casings are heavier than the Supra-Phonic lugs. Ludwig also made a slight design change to the Supra-Phonic Imperial lugs.

If you view an Imperial lug from the side profile, you will notice three flat plains or levels that appear as though they are almost stacked on to one another. They create ridges between each successive level so that the top or outmost shape is smallest, and the innermost surface is the largest, forming the bulk of the lug’s figure.

Both models’ Imperial lugs are the same size, but each of the three ridged plains of the lugs on a Super-Ludwig is smaller than on the Supra-Phonic lug. The Imperial lugs on a Super-Ludwig have a smaller inside cavity and shorter spring resulting in more metal mass and lug weight.

5. The counter hoops of a Super-Ludwig are chrome over brass. The counter hoops of the Supra-Phonic are chrome over steel. A magnet will attract to the steel hoops but not to the brass hoops. The magnet test cannot differentiate the shells because neither brass nor aluminum will attract a magnet. However rare, it is possible to find an early Supra-Phonic fitted with Imperial lugs of the Super-Ludwig style. When Ludwig made a design change, they gradually used up the previous models’ leftover inventory, resulting in some overlap. 

6. The snare beds of the Super-Ludwig are crimped. The snare beds of an Acousti-Perfect shell appear less severe and not as apparent because they are gradually tapered away from the snare wire center position, and there is no visible crimp to the bed.

7. The strainer on the early Super-Ludwigs and Supra-Phonics was the P-83 model, and later models received the P-85 strainer. The oldest P-83 strainers were stamped “WFL.” The WFL stamped were gradually replaced with the same strainer showing the script Ludwig logo. The butt plate was stamped “WFL” on the older versions and eventually replaced by the script Ludwig logo.

How do these two iconic variations of snare drum compare where it matters, that is to say, in sound and playability? I would say both models perform spectacularly well. I resist using terms like “warm” or “bright,” but I will say the stick response of both shell versions is excellent from the outmost edge of the head surface to the center. I attribute this in no small measure to the fact that there are ten tuning rods per head.

Both drums have a good range of tunability, from the low end of good head response to a high and tight tuning. I do recommend that if you have an early Super or Supra that you will realize the best feel and tuning when using a single ply, coated drum head.

One characteristic of these drums is that the snare wires are quite “buzzy.” Not just from sympathetic resonance from other instruments but also in solo performance. The buzziness of the Supra-Phonic is better controlled with bottom head tuning than the Super-Ludwig. The buzziness is more manageable because the Acousti-Perfect snare bed is shallower than the deep snare beds of the Super-Ludwig. Deeper snare beds require that the rods on each side of the snare beds receive more torque in tuning to eliminate wrinkles in the snare head.

I have experimented with various snare wires on both drums, including standard Ludwig snare wires, Puresound wires, and the Rhythm Tech “Active Snare System,” which is sort of like a fake Dyna-Sonic snare bridge. Each of them has performed well, the differences are subjective, but in my opinion, the Rhythm Tech does help dry up some of the Supra-Phonic buzziness. I use Ludwig wires on the Super because those are the snares that would have been the original stock.

So, if you do not own a Super or a Supra and you find yourself with an opportunity to get one in good condition, you should do it! The Supers are relatively rare, and if they have not been abused or neglected, they hold up exceptionally well. Even a 1960 Super can still look new, and if well maintained, it will continue to look good and serve well, long after we are all gone.

The Supra-Phonic can look terrible with the bubbling chrome finishes, but that has zero effect on the drum’s sound and playability. Once upon a time, I considered that to be an ugly flaw and symbol of an inferior drum design, but I am no longer so prejudice against their appearance. I think the pitting and bubbles lend a unique character to the drums. The pitting may even work to your advantage as a buyer because most folks want to own the “pretty” drum. Another bonus of its distressed appearance is that you don’t worry so much about picking up a few extra scratches, making this drum a perfect workhorse for gigs.

Thank you for taking the time to absorb this tiny slice of Ludwig drum history. I am by no means the highest authority on this subject. I happen to own these two drums, and as a valued part of my collection, I conducted personal research to better educate myself as to what I have.