I cringe when I hear instructors say this (usually band directors when talking about triangle and timpani.) I know I'm not quite experienced enough to say this, but any movement that is made after the mallet is no longer in contact with the instrument is meaningless. Of course the sound can still be manipulated depending on how you "come off" of the drum, but I'm talking about movement after the stick and head have separated. The "sound particles" do not attract around the stick or beater! You can't pull the sound out of a drum.

A visiting director was giving a clinic for our 2nd band and he explained to our timpanist how to "pull the sound" out of the drum. His note consistency dramatically worsened. I know that you can't judge technique based on how an amateur plays, but does anyone else feel resentment to this attitude towards technique?

My philosophy is not to use the proper technique, but to use the most effective technique.

There is actually a lot to be said for each. For instance, Dennis DeLucia talks a lot about the "tap hum" of the stick at his clinics, it is actually meant to get the student to relax and become more efficient with the playing. You can't actually hear the hum of the stick from 50 yards away, nor does it really effect the sound of the head or drum resonating. In the Methods of Movement book Steven's pretty much says word for word what you said, "movement that is made after the mallet is no longer in contact with the instrument is meaningless" (DaDig). But he does point out efficient movement. In other words, IMO I agree with you, but realize that "proper technique" is often just a written method of an effective technique. In fact, I use a very different method than most with my ensembles... I focus on the sound and feeling rather than look, movement, and heights; if you're relaxed and producing the tone and dynamic expression you want then there's a good chance your doing it right. Again "proper technique", IMO, is just a guideline or place for people to begin. Peace...

Good post by the way, nice to see some intelligent discussion.

Well, there was a discussion about this concept on Drummer Cafe : Drummer Cafe Pulling the sound out...

I think that most people who use this teaching method don't realize that their real problem with someone's technique or tone production is actually with what's occurring before the note is played, and I think the reason people KEEP saying the phrase is because telling someone "pull the sound out of the whatever" usually doesn't just alter what's happening after the note is played, but also what's happening before the note played (thus hopefully solving the problem). This especially seems to be true of band directors who know (or are close to knowing) the sound they want to hear (or rather, don't want to hear), but don't have the knowledge to really assess why that person's hands aren't producing that sound.

People seem to use this phrase with things like timpani, mallet instruments, and triangles, probably because some percussionists try and use the same technique and touch on those instruments as something like a snare drum, and it simply doesn't work.

Honestly, I think the whole "pull the sound out of (Insert instrument name here)" doesn't actually have anything to do with making the instrument louder.
I understand the concept on triangle and timpani, though not as much on timpani, but I think it has more to do with the beater, stick, or mallet not staying on the beating surface as long as usual which causes a brighter tone, though I find the darker the tone, for timpani, the better.
The idea is more visually pleasing than fundamentally efficient; It's not the best for tone production or for overall playing.
Oh well that's my opinion.

Rhythm Song pretty much said everything I wanted to say. The visual effort is pleasing, and foolsome, so do it. You shouldn't "cringe" when you hear instructors saying that, because that just leaves the impression that you can't do it... which is bad. There doesn't seem to be a better tone when describing how to play timpani/triangle, and it seems that the phrase, "pull it out of the drum," sticks.

That's pretty much all I have to say. I agree completely with Rhythm Song... so listen to him. As for that Shoesindryer1... I don't know what the crap you're talking about... you're not getting the concept I don't think.

Introduce yourself to the orchestral world. If you're in there long enough, you won't hear a conductor's speech about "after-attack(post attack) technique" less than five thousand times. Start playing things like Cymbals, Triangles, Tambourines, and even smaller instruments like a vibraslap, in which you'll discover that what you do after your initial attack has a direct effect on what it is the audience hears.

The same goes for Tympani and any other instrument, don't trust your judgement based on your own ears and room placement unless you're a professional. They design entire rooms and stages based on the difference of sound between where you are and where the audience is.

You are right that what you do after striking the bar does not affect the sound of the bar. However, the key to this is that *what you INTEND to do after striking the bar will affect how you strike the bar*. It's similar to swinging a baseball bat: does following through the swing actually affect the way the ball moves after being hit? No. But INTENDING to follow through has a huge effect on what happens when you actually strike the ball. In the same way, intending to create an artificial rebound affects the way you strike the bar.

Here's a completely different approach to the same idea: When playing a keyboard, the mallets live "up." For example, if you're playing at a 9" height, the mallets live 9" above the keyboard. When they play a note, they go down and strike the bar, and then return home as quickly as possible. This is usually how I approach it with my students, as I also don't like the "pull the sound out" phrase, as it doesn't accurately reflect how the sound works (and every year, I have a physics lesson with my students where they learn how the sound really DOES work).

Side note: one year, my students decided to rename this legato technique to the "agorophobic" technique - the mallets didn't want to leave home, and when they did, they ran out as fast as possible, did what they needed to do, and then returned home as quickly as they could. Feel free to use the "agorophibic" technique to make your playing better.

Well said J, you made your point well. And to add to your analogy, in most forms of karate, the attacker is supposed to "punch through" the target in a way similar to playing through the head. If your target is 1 foot away, then imagine you're punching a target 2 feet away.

Whoops, I was unaware of that >_<
sry Inversion!

I believe instructors in high school use the phrase "pull the sound out" to discuss the idea of projection to students that age. Projection is all about technique (similar to what jthurman discussed above). I never really talked much about this idea until this year, I re-taught technique to the keyboards and the sound does carry much further. It creates the sensation of volume but it really just projects further.

I think they use the phrase because they don't want students to do the opposite of the action, which would be to keep the mallets on the bars after contact has been made. My instructor actually used the analogy of pretending the bars were hot and you couldn't keep the mallets on the bars.

I think percussionisto has the right idea. What the director is doing is merely giving a visual representation that the student can use to produce the result that the director wants. I don't think the director has time to explain the physics of percussion like: the concepts of force, aiming below the surface of the bar/head, how microseconds matter when it comes to how long the mallet/stick maintains contact with the head/bar, etc.

If a student is truly interested in learning all about these fascinating yet difficult concepts to understand (I barely do at times and I've studied this at college for 4 years!), then the director can explain it to them. However, I think to make a quick fix, "lifting the sound from the bars" is acceptable.

I don't think "pulling the sound out of the instrument" has anything to do with the sound in itself, however by doing it the motion before hitting the instrument changes when you think "pull the sound out". You tend to be much more relaxed when the motion is described as "gently pulling the sound out of the instrument" versus "hitting the note". I doubt if anyone actually believes you can literally pull sound out of the instrument but that mental approach translates to making a much better quality of sound from the instrument.

I think that's why people teach it. It's a mental trick. They got us.