Boombats wrote:SorryGoddamn better be. Fucking Jesus.

Different tools for different jobs.However, rock is all about the backbeat, and some landmark rock records just wouldn't rock as hard without the big snare.I personally prefer a robust snare sound that has both, but if I had to choose: BOOM.

Boombats wrote:Well in the Thunderdome, Crack beats Boom for sheer ear-piercing volume. Nothing can match the aural wimpiness of a giant piccolo snare getting the full whack.

a. james wrote:i wish more drummers would use two snares. if i ever start playing drums i'm going to have two snares.A drummer in my hometown has two snares and two high hats in his 6-piece kit. One deep, one pic, set up so he can easily switch. It's doable.

dontfeartheringo wrote:I hate piccolo snares.Seconded, but I like Pete Beeman's snare on Guzzard's Quick, Fast, In a Hurry. For the record, I dig a wallop.

I hate the high-pitched sounds some snares have. God, it's awful. The whole "ping" sound, I guess. I'm not explaining this well.I apologize for inflicting this turd on you, but just listen to the little drum intro to get what I'm talking about.I like a nice good old-fashioned thwack. John Bonham, Bill Ward, Ringo, Jody Stephens, you know. Nothing fancy, but good, crisp and tasteful. Whatever works for the music. Even that little rat-a-tat snippy sound that Grant Hart had worked for the music. Penny Rimbaud's drumming on Crass's stuff always sounded nice and crisp.I guess I'm not really about the boom (can someone give a youtube example of that?). But I like a good crack on the drum.

Can't vote for either as it kinda depends on the song around it. I can tell you that I like a snare with a good body to it that has a really intense crack, BUT, barely any ring to it. I fuckin hate overly ringy drums and have a similar(not as intense) distaste for overly dead drums.

Boombats wrote:Sorry Aww, son of a bitch.