Cymbals......

Just a question for all you out there-

clean your cymbals yes or no?

I have heard the arguement that to clean your cymbals is to remove the "seasoned" sound.

just wondering.....

Don't worry about it. Here's the deal:

Some of that "seasoned" sound is coming from dirt and corrosion on the surface of the cybmal. The rest is coming from the cymbal itself aging. Cleaning will only work on the surface of the cymbal a fraction of a millimeter deep. The rest of the cymbal is uneffected.

If you clean 'em, and you don't like the sound of 'em, just go get 'em dirty again. Put them in the mud, spill some drinks on 'em, and rub some dirt on 'em and you'll be back where you left off.

One other thing....just to pre-empt the next question that always follows on these "clean cymbal" threads: cleaning will remove oxidation which is the outer layer of your cymbal corroding away. So in theory, you're actually removing part of your cymbal when you clean it. Unlike human skin which replenishes itself, your cymbal will not reconstitute its cells. So if you clean your cymbals regularly, you'll eventually wittle your cymbals down to nothing...like a bar of soap.

Of course it will probably take you 80 or 90 years if you clean your cymbals every time you play. Still, something else to keep you up at night tossing and turning.....

You mean besides the bloating and heartburn!?

No?

/w

nada. thats so not rock and roll. might as well clean the stick dust off your bass drum while youre at it.

ah, I hate stick dust...

I clean my cymbals only if I have a really big gig to play or if I am shooting a video. Other than that I just try to keep fingerprints and stick marks off them. Windex works nice for a good once over before a show.

-- I clean my cymbals maybe once a year. I was just wondering what others' opinions were.

I just got a 60's A Ziljidan ride, looked like sh*t (someone had put out cigarettes on it which is why I got such a good deal) Took it home and cleaned it up last night and it looks like new. Sounds great. all seasoning aside...

jokin about the stick dust. i have a black kit with the ride over the bass drum... so you can imagine the outcome. as for cymbals, I just dont clean mine. no sound reason... just like them as they are.

I just hate going to a gig and realizing when the drums are under lights that all of the dust from my basement is sitting on the cymbals. Rather than "rock and roll" it looks like I haven't played the drums in a few years.

Yeah that's thing. The theories behind not cleaning are all well and good. but a drummer's overall presentation, (any musician, really), includes a visual element that goes a long way in projecting a professional image. Dirty or unkempt-looking instruments detract from that...in my eyes, anyway.

Don't call it "dirt," call it "Tone!"

I tend to find the opposite to be true...If im at show and i see really beat to {censored} looking drums and a guitar with belt scartches on it and amps that look like hell....odds are these guys know what they're doing and have been playing a gigging constantly...when i see this im at ease, because i know im in for a good performance.....where as conversely, I've seen plenty of bands with immaculate equipment and they just plain sucked ass.

Of course it's possible for a band to have pristine equipment and still suck, or for a great band to have well-used stuff. I don't think either way is always true. The point I was making is that if you're a band who is out there gigging and gunning for more, appearance is part of your product. There are paycheck writers that would choose one band over others based on appearance. Not that I'd condone such a thing, but I suspect that many bookers, if faced with hiring one of two bands of comparable skill, playing the same music for the same pay, will favor the better-looking.

I totally agree about looking professional, but better looking equipment rarely contributes to "looking professional"...I just think it's rare to see a band with beat to {censored}(looking) good equipment suck.....ie: an old beat up slingerland or ludwig that sounds amazing....or an old beat to {censored} fender twin reverb amp.....whereas it's more common to see a terrible band with brand spanking new equipment. not saying there arent exceptions of course.

Could be true, depending on where you've been and what you've seen. It's difficult to regard any of this as statistically "official."

For me personally, it's like Steve said: You're setting up at a gig...the lighting calls attention to some dust on your gear that you could wipe off in a matter of seconds...why wouldn't you?

I try to clean all of my gear as much as possible and keep everything looking new. I like things shiny. Maybe I'm just mental.

Look at it this way, at least at the gigs you don't have all the stick shavings that you have managed to "remove" from you sticks. You conviently left those on your drum rug at home.

Rumstik makes a good point about looking professional, but I also jdiederi is coming from. Still, it goes right back to Rumstik's point if you think about it.

As Rumstik pointed out:

My only change would be to drop the word "professional", and then you're really saying the same thing.

Image IS a part of the perfomance, and needs to be aligned with the type of music you're playing. A guy playing a small jazz kit wearing a suit and tie would look as out of place at a metal show as a guy with a huge double bass kit wearing a torn t-shirt and spandex would look in a jazz club.

Some bands want to project an image that they're tried and true road warriors who don't care what they look like. In most instances, these same people are secretly VERY worried about what they look like and spend a significant amout of time (as much as people trying to look "professional") to cultivate their "I don't care" look.

So in the end, your equipment and its appearance is part of your band's overall appearance.

Of course ever generalization like this leaves out all of the exceptions. Plenty of guys sound great on crappy looking gear, and plenty of bands have great gear and can't play their way out of a paper bag.

What I tend to look at is the overall upkeep and functionality of people's gear. If a guy's heads are totally pitted and shot to hell, and his stands are held together with duct tape, I tend to be predisposed to thinking that the guy doesn't give a crap about his music, since he doesn't care about his gear. At the same time, if you see a 'well worn' kit, but everything is functioning properly, the heads are in decent shape, and the thing is just a little older and worn looking, I tend to think the guy is just an older pro who is getting the most out of his gear.

Anyway, appearances, like it or not, are part of the whole "performance" thing.

I grew up back when "men" didn't "work on their look." Things are very different now in that regard. When I was 12-17, a kid my age would get his ass kicked for having spent time dying his hair, or showing any sign of ouvert fashion consciousness. I guess the pocket tee, a haircut when forced, and generic wranglers was our fashion, in a sense, but I digress.

I never clean my cymbals. I don't ant to take away the sounds I'm getting from my cymbals that I am now.

I don't clean mine. I don't know if I ever have. You start shinin' 'em up and then they get visible finger prints, and then you gotta shine 'em up again and then they get visible finger prints ... Leave 'em be. They look fine. If they're good cymbals they'll sound good regardless. IMHO