First of all please stay on topic for this thread. What I'm throwing out here are a bunch of abstract ideas, so it's going to be really easy to stray or flame.

TOPIC: WHAT MAKES A GREAT PLATE LINE

I've played cymbals under a lot of different instructors. I've learned east and west coast styles and Eddie Capps' technique. I love to watch all plate lines - from down-in-the-dumps-have-no-uniform-technique high schools to the conventional greats. There are of course things I've learned from these peoples and things I've observed from these groups.

My question is not what great cymbal lines have, but how to make one.

It's obvious to everybody that good sound quality and timing is important to a cymbal line. The kings of SCV and Eddie both stress it. Don't even bother starting to throw in visuals if you don't have any timing. Technique can always be learned along the road - nobody starts perfect. But timing is something, as a percussionist, you should be solid with auditioning for any line. So of course timing is important.

Uniform sound goes along the same lines. Everybody knows there's no point to any musical instrument that doesn't produce sound of quality. This is obvious.

Uniform look is the next step. It's easy to say "the difference between Spirit and Boonhick High School is every one of those guys has uniform technique." It doesn't take a percussionist, musician, or leader to see that. Any child can point that out.

What separates the best from the good?

My argument is broken up into three sections: 1. instructors and leader, 2. players, 3. approach.
-----------
1. INSTRUCTORS AND LEADERS

When I considered what made a great cymbal line the first thing that came to mind was the instructor. I think that's the logical step for all people.

I figure an instructor that is on his game can take that talent anywhere. This goes along the theory that with the proper instruction people can maximize their potential - aka there is essentially no difference between you, me, SCV, etc. except who we learned from.

This theory assumes:
- The instructor is a skilled leader (at this point I will not address my thoughts on what makes a skilled leader)
- The instructor is knowledgeable
- Wherever this instructor goes, he will breed success

Does that mean wherever a great instructor teaches so he grows success? I'm not sure. Even for the best cymbal lines I've seen "off years." Although the instructor did not change the quality of the line did.

But as a counter argument I've seen terrible lines become amazing with the right instruction.

What did the instructor do to make a line better or worse? I think it's safe to assume that the approach changed very little (if at all.) There must be more factors in play, in my mind.

That brings me to leadership. In my experience I've found that great lines are not made when there is no leader. The instructor is always a leader - but he is not part of the section membership. He is more of a guide and inspiration. In the same turn I've found that bad lines have turned decent as a leader rises to an occasion.

Such is the case that we all know: in high school when there is a bad section but it seems one freshman comes in and has DRIVE. He has POTENTIAL. We've all watched as he rises to the occasion of leadership and pushes the section - and the entire drum line - to greater heights then before.

But not the best there is.

So is it a combination of good leadership and good instruction? Although this seems like an easy answer, and the most logical, I do not believe this is true.

I have seen plate lines with some of the best leaders and instructors fail to be considered "one of the greats.**" When I watch them I notice similar flaws. They're all minor details. Maybe somebody flips a little early, or another player's timing is just a hair off. It happens all the time in DCI: you'll have sections of a drum line (snare, tenor, etc) that have the presence of a great leader, and has some of the best instructors of all time, but not make finals. What's the difference?

I think the next logical answer is obvious: the players.

**NOTE: I do have specific examples to cite, but find it unnecessary to do so in a public forum.
-----------------------
2. THE PLAYERS

I think many will argue that the quality of the players are not a considerable factor in this game - just as I believe many will argue otherwise. My argument falls on neither side.

For the most part, the better the line the better the talent. It's obvious if you create a section of players that already have impeccable timing, sound quality, and technique all you really need to learn are the notes, make it uniform, and the visuals.

But how big a role do the players make, and what sort of players are you looking for?

I think it can be agreed upon that the players of any section don't make the game. You can have great players that individually are perfect that just seem to not come together (there are so many historical references to this it is ridiculous.) I also think that it can be agreed upon that if you're handed players that have zero ability it will be very very hard, if not improbable, to make them into a "great." A good, possible, but a "great?" I think the odds are negligible.

The question of how big a role the individuals make I think is slightly more then the instructor and varies to the talent of the instructor and leader, and of course the individual talent of each player.

In all cases I think the individuals play a significant role in the success of a plate line - if I were pressed for a percentage I would say about 76%.

But I think that amount has room to move. Depending on the instructor and leadership I think that varies. I've been on lines where the instructor depends on the leadership. This occurs much more often on a cymbal line then any other section I believe. Playing cymbals is something you can't really do in your spare time, and as instructors age they find that the physical strain of it combined with their lack of practice leads them to set bad examples should they pick up a pair of brass. Many instructors will use the leadership to set examples (more about this in APPROACH.)

In such a case I believe the role of the individuals in the game slightly increases. When learning from a peer rather than an instructor I think there grow more conflicts - especially depending on the leader's leadership style. In this respect I think the role of the individuals can more greatly effect the outcome of the section.

So what kind of players do you want to be the best?

It's obvious and easy to state "good players." It's just as easy to be more elaborate and state "players with motivation, an open mind, enthusiasm, skill, and discipline." But if you say that then you have said nothing.

We have all seen lines where individuals had no motivation or enthusiasm be driven to success. That may seem contradictory but imagine again an example used earlier: a drum line at Boonhick High School is a dump. One freshman comes in and is motivated. He pushes himself to success, and the line follows. We have all seen it happen.

So what gives those others motivation? Is it an example he sets as a leader? Is it that they always had the potential to do so, they just needed a bandwagon to jump on? Are they just sheep following their leader? Is it even motivation, or merely the presence of better makes them better?

There are hundreds of examples of lines with tons of motivation that fail.

The same goes for all other aspects of individuals. There are examples of failure with players that are disciplined, or skilled, or any of a number of wanted qualities.

Is it a combination? Obviously as many wanted qualities as possible is in demand. But are these qualities learned, or born with?

It's an argument of natural selection v. adaptation: are you born to succeed, or are you turned into success?

This is one of the many questions I have no theory worth mentioning about and would like to hear what you have to say.

Which brings me to my favorite part.
---------------------------------
3. THE APPROACH

All great drum lines, all great leader, all great everything in the world and history have an approach.

Martin Luther King. Jr. used civil disobedience.
Ghandi used non-cooperation.
Hitler used fear.

What separates a successful approach to those that fail?

As a fighter I have found the best coaches/masters will teach you the same thing - what is natural.

As a musician I have found that the best players/instructors will teach you the same thing - what is natural.

In my opinion the approach is what is natural. Now I have said a lot of words without saying a single thing at all.

So what does it mean to be natural?

Well in the world of fighting it means you will create the greatest force, fastest movement, and best defenses by doing what your body likes to do naturally.

In music it's taught by the best of the best. Bachman will stress the best way to clean triplet rolls - play good triplets. It seems obvious to us that people should simplify things to make them better. To do what natural seems obvious.

But along the same lines it's taught completely opposite. In any fight when a person swings at your stomach you're naturally going to want to protect your body. What is natural is to push your arms between your stomach and your attacker's fists. But as any experienced boxer will tell you: should you drop your hands you'll find yourself kissing mat when your attacker lands one straight in your face. So you're taught to take those body hits, keep your hands up.

With percussion sometimes we're taught to push a tempo, use our wrist more (or less), or observe heights. None of this is natural.

What is the balance of approach?

On one side Paul Rennick of Phantom will teach to do what your body feels is normal - and listen. He doesn't stress heights, but instead dynamics. Keep your ears listening and your mind open. Your 3" may not be the guy inside you 3". You can't physically tell if you're playing the same height without looking - but you can hear if you're playing different dynamics.

On a different approach many will stress heights. The argument is if you all play the same height, with the same force and technique, you will come out with the same sound. That makes sense also.

So what is the approach?

Again, a question I have come up with theories with but not to solidify yet. I pose to you.
-----------------------------------
What makes the great plate lines different from the good? I've watched good cymbal lines that have everything - great instructors, leadership, players, motivation, programs - fail to become great.

What separates them?

I've been thinking about this for almost two years now and this is all that I've come up with.

More to come soon....

Now thats one hell of a post.

What makes a plate line great compared to a just good plate line?

Did I get the question right?

Well, first of all, you can answer this two ways.
1.) by discussing the internal ingredients that make a good plate line (discussing the means to the ends)
2.) By discussing the end result (how the line plays).

You can discuss both and still end up with a bunch of hypothetical questions.

In my eyes a plate line is greater than a good plate line when their technique is pristine. That means timing of preps, visuals/flips is together, the angles are almost flawless which should lead to unisons that sound together, not like a flam. Really, it starts with the simple things. Cymbals are a visual instrument. If you can SEE multiple things in a cymbal line that aren't together consistently (that isn't from a result of split parts, obviously) then before you even hear the crash you know that there is more work to be done and they aren't GREAT. Doesn't make them bad, they can still be good, but they wouldn't be great unless they rock both auditory and visual senses with pristine sound quality and technique.

Internally (#1 I mentioned earlier), "what creates this line to be greater?", is really no particular formula. You pretty much covered that in your mini novel ;). Its a combination of instruction and their relationship with the players (their character, potential, and other intrinsic values thereof). I really don't think approach has that much of an effect. What I mean by this is while one approach may be more effective to get the point across, it doesn't mean that it won't yield the same or better results than a different program that has a lesser effective approach in the leadership/instruction but has more motivated players (or other scenario). One instructor and their approach can get a line to be play just as well as another line that has a different instructor with a completely different approach. Because of this scenario, I think its easier and makes more sense to approach the answer of this question by discussing the end results rather than the means to the end.

I find the difference is a combination mental and physical toughness. And also of mental maturity. Being able to concentrate for extended periods of time. Thats where those little visual ticks come from.
Being able to concentrate when youre tired or bored, is not easy. the more mature players are able to. maturity comes from experience.

Secondly anyone can go "arrr im tough and can stick it out" and be motivated. Especially during rehearsal. But it takes a mature Player to be able to put that energy into the correct context. Having the correct type of motivation is essential, the kind where you want to be great at 2 in the afternoon on a monday when you feel like watching tv, but instead sit infront of a mirror and flip your right cymbal until its perfect. then switch to the left. then both. and then figure out exactly how much time it takes to initate, and lock.
The details of individual preparation is probably as important as being mentally tough....

there are so many variables when it comes to the differences between good and great. But 9/10 it comes down to the players in the line. and thier approach to the preparation, then thier approach to the rehearsal.

You can sit and preach to the kids about any technique, and approach you want, but in the end its up to them to make it happen. you cant do it for them.

I've seen a few platelines and I think the thing that makes great lines compared good lines is consistency.

A line may have great skill and attitude, but if the players aren't consistent from rehearsal to rehearsal, performance to performance, flip to flip, etc, then they will never be able to learn eachother's style and approach. If you have players that are willing to take the time and mental effort to try to do every little thing the same every time, that is a line that can become great.

The instructors need to have a consistant approach and not change their mind as they teach and find problems with their method. They should find a great approach and understand it BEFORE they teach it so they don't conflict their own teachings.

Here here Alabama!!!

I think one of the most important components to a good plate line is motivation. There are so many high school lines out there that have the potential to be great, but people just don't care. Often times the cymbals are viewed as the instrument people who can't drum are thrown on, and as a result, the people who are on cymbals feel inferior to the rest of the line and have no desire to try and become good at marching cymbals. They view the plates as only a transitional instrument, something to keep them on the battery until they develop their chops enough to make bass/snare/tenors.

Our plate line was exactly as how I described above. We could've been halfway-decent if people had just wanted to try. But instead most members blew off the advice our instructor gave us, refusing to learn different types of crashes or do cymbal visuals. Some people never even learnt their music for the year. Most of this lack of motivation was set on by the fact that cymabls are viewed as a dumping ground for freshmen and untalented players and are only useful when it comes to holding for the snare drummers.

We could've been good. It was just that noone cared.

I really think that insomniac has hit on something big here. It obviously has crossed my mine that player's play a big role but I had not very much considered the level of concentration. I think this is a great point you have brought up and will consider this in my own thoughts.



Although this is a valid point alabamadrummer I feel that this is obvious. As stated it's easy to say "be consistent," just as easy at it is to say "uniform technique" are the keys to a great cymbal line, just like saying "playing at the same time" is key to making a great snare line. I would assume you would have noticed that had you read the question.



Along the same lines as AlabamaDrummer, I think you have misunderstood the question Cowly. Had you read the post I think you might have noticed that I have stated that there have existed many cymbal lines out there with tons of motivation that were "good" but not great. I think something good for you to consider would be why there was no lack of motivation. Again it is easy to scape-goat out of that question by saying that members refused to learn because of a sense of inferiority, but that would be like saying people who are put into bad situations in the world don't want their lives to get better because they're depressed. Think about it and try to come up with a better answer.