ADDRESS: Review of Stuart Rice's Functional Marching Paper Rick Beckham Here at last is the long awaited review of Stuart's Functional Marching, A paper that he submitted 2 years back. I had planned on sending this review out in my newsletter, Rick Beckham on Stuart Rice (RBOSR) but two things happened: I issued so many demerits to disinterested people of the marching arts, including to Stuart, that my newsletter membership dwindled to zero, and Stuart taunted me into posting here for all to see. Before we get to the review here's the opening paragraph of my newsletter that never saw print. It explains some remarks Stu made previously about validating research. Morning all. In Stuart's last 5-months-in-the-making diatribe, uh, 'newsletter', he completely ignored my comments to the person who 'hassled' me concerning the validity of Stuart's research. I'll reprint those words here, for all to see, particularly since Stuart does such a fine job of editorializing (he admits to editorializing, which makes his 'newsletter' fall under a subjective category rather than objective. He has every right to do this, since it is called "Stuart Rice On Marching", but he doesn't have the right to dishonestly label something a debate that in actuality is a cut and paste job tilted in his favor, slashing points he can't answer. That debate deceit was the reason for my response. I suspect the real reason why Stuart does not want people replying-to-all on his distribution list is containment; it makes it so much easier to win an argument when the viewers witness only one distorted side). Here is what I wrote to Matt LaFontaine on Mar 20 at 9:48 am: Matt LaFontaine wrote: No - he doesn't editorialize it to give himself the upper hand, he does it to show the difference between those who do research and have ideas that he believes will promote the cause of choreographed marching vs. those who either don't do research or would attempt to devalue choreographed marching. You're making a huge assumption here, that Stuart's 'research' is valid. Has Stuart validated any of his 'research'? Does Stuart even know how to go about validating research? A research paper, if it is to assume credibility, must be submitted to a group of peers for peer review. The purpose is to see if everyone agrees with the drawn conclusions (and this is assuming all resources used in the research are valid). In fact a good researcher will put his paper through a rigorous review knowing that if it survives the review process it has a better chance of gaining acceptance. A research paper begins by stating what it hopes to prove or disprove. If the author is truly objective sometimes he/she will arrive at the opposite conclusion of what they hoped. A researcher who always arrives at the conclusion they hoped to arrive at is highly suspect of fudging the conclusions. The second, and fastest, way a researcher can lose credibility is by ad hominems [sp] attacks on people who disagree will the conclusions. This shows the peer group that the 'researcher' uses more emotion when researching than clear objective reasoning. This is the crux of your 'would attempt to devalue choreographed marching' comment. Stuart believes marching is numero uno in drum corps. Others have disagreed, and had logical valid reasons, and instead of Stuart arguing/debating those reasons, he uses ad hominem attacks. If Stuart believes just by writing papers he is writing truth then he's a bigger fool and pompous ass than most people believe. It's a steadfast rule in academia circles that a paper is only as good as the existing knowledge that supports it, and can easily be discredited with new data. Judging by Stuart's rambling in his last 'newsletter', he still lives under the misconception that anyone who writes papers and uses footnotes automatically qualifies as harbingers of truth, not to be questioned or criticized without risk of the heavens opening up and raining demerits on said questioner's head or being struck by a "you get an F" thunderbolt. Since I've yet to see any of Stuart's papers validated I thought I'd offer him the courtesy, by rendering my services, free of charge, of reviewing a paper he submitted to the RAMD symposium two years back. Lest you question my reviewing credentials let me state for the record that part of my job requires me to review documents of various sorts. review Functional Description documents, which are documents written to describe a product to a customer, to Detailed Description documents, which are in-house, and describe the minutia details of designing a product. I'm an old hand at reviewing, been doing it now for 8 years. Reviewing product documents is no different that reviewing research papers. Aside from correcting syntactic and grammatical errors, a good reviewer looks for invalid conclusions, speculation with no supporting data, digressions, generalizations, ad hominem phrases, emotional pleas, and loquaciousness. Okay, on with the review. The Functional Marching Revolution: Case Studies in the Advancement of Technique (This title suggests the paper will examine the evolution of technique by comparing separate case studies.) By Stuart E. Rice, B.M. Contents: I. Introduction to Modern Drum Corps II. The Origin of Functional Marching III. Four Case Studies A. Concord, California B. Garfield, New Jersey C. Thornton, Colorado D. Duchesne, Utah IV. Education in Drum Corps and RAMD V. Why Johnny Can't March VI. 21 Fallacies of Marching Appendix 1: The Upright Method of Functional Marching Appendix 2: Sources "The Functional Marching Revolution: Case Studies in The Advancement of Technique" by Stuart E. Rice, Copyright (c) 1996 by Stuart Rice. All rights reserved. The Functional Marching Revolution: Case Studies in the Advancement of Technique Dr. Bales and the Drum Corps Medical Project Committee: [What is this line and what relevence [sp] does it serve?] This is a paper on marching technique. In my years of study I could count on one hand the people I have met who understood what technique is. Most think it has something to do with an ensemble. Others think it is synonymous with uniformity. I hope this contribution helps clear up at least this. This is a paper that I have not been looking forward to writing, however, because I realize it could well be my last for drum corps. Drum corps holds few opportunities to develop the mind, and I fear recent efforts to promote drum corps research have not been successful enough to insure my participation. I have also concluded my eight-year career as a librarian, and my new career as a music educator allows me little time to make contributions. However, I owe the DCMP Committee a report, regardless of my fears. I take comfort in the fact that I have been in this situation twice before, and each time I had assumed I would never again have an opportunity to contribute to drum corps in this way. With this report, I submit to you the results of my twelve-years of research in marching technique (an art and aesthetic experience as fine as I have ever enjoyed), and earnestly hope the Committee will find this report of use in the cause of preventative medicine. (What is the purpose of this paper? The purpose should be near the top and it should describe what the author hopes to prove.) I. Introduction to Modern Drum Corps. "Drum corps has its roots in marching band," says a 1990 Wall Street Journal report on the activity (Sept. 18). [Interesting, the very first sentence of this paper is a quote that is above all, inaccurate. Drum corps existed before marching bands. Also, author is referencing a second-hand source.] It should have read "modern" drum corps [Author is correcting a reference he used.] bugles were never successfully integrated into bands, and as a result, the separate identity of the drum and bugle corps remains intact (for now). [He infers that modern drum corps has its roots in marching bands, without data, then jumps track by stating bugles have never integrated into bands. Two separate thoughts. He ends the sentence with a speculation.] The modern drum and bugle corps is, however, very much a product of mid-twentieth century high school and college marching bands. [A bold assertion with nothing to back it up. It's a fabrication. See above.] If this is a slap in the face for some, it is needed to waken them - drum corps has been slow to respond to the administration education in its own ranks. [The above sentence incorrectly implies that drum corps has an obligation or mandate to educate, and that it has failed this obligation. Again no data.] As a result, it has yet to successfully disseminate its art, culture and identity in mainstream America. [Bad conclusion, that as a result of 'slow to educate' drum corps has not 'successfully disseminated its art', not stated as Author's opinion, but as fact, with no data to back it up.] The fact that its recent glory was ignited by the popularity of pre- and post-WWII marching band half-time shows only demonstrates further how its success is dependent on education. [Once again author states as fact something he has not demonstrated. What does 'recent glory' mean? To what 'success' is the author referring?] Even its present economic crisis demonstrates the need of education. [Another assertion with no data to back it up. And the author does not specify what type of education would cure these economic woes, but the implication is inaccurately derived, because drum corps are self supporting, while marching bands are tax funded. The comparison to draw the implication is invalid.] Regardless of similarities and differences in their administration, bands and corps are parents of the art, co-creators of choreographed marching, [The term 'choreographed marching' has no validity, since choreography pertains to dance. Well, I guess modern drum corps is more dance than marching, but then drop the 'marching' and just call it choreography.] and both play unique (and essential) roles in promoting the art in different settings. It matters little which came first - the chicken (territorality, which brought the functional dialogue of military marching) or the egg (self-expression, which brought the symbolic forms of band marching). We know both are necessary, and we know that fife/drum/bugle corps were functional, commissioned military, while bands passed the hat among officers in order to entertain. The former was functional. The latter, cultural. A cultural endeavor (such as marching band) is not inherently more beautiful than a functional endeavor (such as drum corps). They can be as equal in beauty as they are in importance. However, we must recognize these separate identities to do justice to the administration of each. [This whole paragraph basically says that drum corps marched functional, militarily, while marching bands marched 'culturally', to entertain. No footnotes to back up this historically inaccurate, overgeneralized statement.] II. The Origin of Functional Marching. Choreographed marching, along with the marching band and drum corps which were created from it, is a product of functional marching. Functional marching made possible each of the nine movement types which comprise our drill today. The purpose, time period, and context may have changed, but the principle of the tool has not. Whether it be the circumambulatory processioning of boundaries, recreational/ceremonial patterning of Nazca geoglyphs, rites of accession, training of the military mind and body or the geometric dialogue of battle formation, marching has always been a functional matter. [Always? But in the first section there were two types, functional and cultural, a discrepancy. Unless he meant to say, "previously".] Even the vaunted goose-step, with its limited practicality, was developed with an aesthetic function in mind (though such frills tend to contain the seeds of their own demise). ['Aesthetic function' is an oxymoron. Author then injects a personal observation which makes one question the author's objectivity. A lawyer would say you're leading the witness, or in this case you're leading the reader. Let facts draw the conclusion, not the author's bias. Also, the use of the word 'tend' draws no conclusive point.] It is the growing recognition of its aesthetic beauty which brought marching from the combative to the creative function. With such a universal and devoted following, it is not surprising that performance marching styles have taken on cultural and ideological characteristics. What is surprising to some is that these "aesthetic" contributions (frills) did not bring us to a recognition of the art. In fact, it was the more functional approach that unveiled choreographed marching as an art, as it continues to this day. [But in section I he implied that drum corps were derived from functional while marching bands were derived from cultural (entertaining), and pre- and post-WWII marching bands were popular. A contradiction. Either this paragraph is worded wrong, or he inaccurately linked drum corps to functional and MB to cultural.] Despite its eighty-years residency in pre-WWII American schools, functional marching didn't always have an easy time of it. The beauty and joy of marching have long been enlisted by (and confused with) destruction itself. In spite of the popularization it brings marching, war has taken a terrible toll on marching technique (to say nothing of its more immediate hazards). World War II was no exception, and its unprecedented demands for fitness (i.e., sports) eliminated marching in physical education. Immediately after, marching bands experienced a lethal mix of resurgent popularity and divergent ideologies toward marching technique. With military style marching no longer conducted in schools, the teaching of marching technique was left to music educators, who themselves were no longer being trained by military officers. Not until the development and popularization of Precision Style marching in the 1950's would marching/musical organizations find reason to address function. [The above paragraph reeks of generalizations. Sources, please.] Drum and bugle corps (along with a few marching bands with a line on the quickly evaporating military training) were the only organizations to wholly escape this unfortunate development. After decades of watching from the sidelines, it seemed corps were suddenly of a mind to seize the opportunity and reform the art which had degenerated to strutting and high stepping. [After decades of what watching from the sidelines? MBs? The last sentence is almost wholly subjective and speculative. Corps were suddenly of a 'mind', and the art had degenerated due to 'strutting and high stepping'.] This functional restoration would by the 1970's set the record straight on the origins and guardians of the art (or so it seemed). [Interesting. Author makes an assertion, then negates it.] Nevertheless, it did not spell the end of functional reform, as would be demonstrated by the Blue Devils and Garfield Cadets (Cadets of Bergen County) drum and bugle corps. The drill of the modern drum and bugle corps is a product of functional, rather than expressive, forces. Corps style marching has gained in popularity over the last several decades because its functional reformations gave the art greater clarity and power, while its less-functional counterpart, precision style band marching, was more showy and elaborate - frilly. [Drum corps lead the marching activity for years wrt [sp] to precision. The term 'precision style band marching' is meaningless. Author does not explain why 'precision style band marching' is showy, frilly, less functional.] Corps style "design," or choreographed marching was intended to effectively illustrate (and thus transcend) music performed on the field, while traditional college style drill was calculated to respond to and incite noise off the field. [Another generalization.] Our greatest artists in drum corps choreographed marching took great pains to create an expression accompanied by music, rather than a thrill in concert with hysteria. Brubaker understood the job, and took a slide rule to it. Even Zingali's free-form approach was not ostentatious - he had something very specific to say about the inflexibility of drum corps drill, and he took responsibility for demonstrating a more aesthetic alternative. Modern drum corps is not pageant - [I think author meant "..not ABOUT pageant". Author is attempting to define Modern drum corps using a nondescript definition.] it is science, continually discovering new formulas for beauty. When this discovery digresses into experimentalism, or regresses into the regurgitation of past contributions, it ceases to be beautiful [Contradiction. Author states MDC is a science because it is continually discovering new formulas for beauty, but then states beauty ceases when it becomes experimental. Discovery is experimental. If one doesn't experiment, and one doesn't use past contributions, then how is one to perpetuate beauty? Author is confusing himself. "Proven, and State of the Art, are mutually exclusive terms."] In truth, it ceases to be drum corps, though it is often mistaken for it. [Author injects his own definition of term 'drum corps'.] True to its military heritage, drum corps marching was functional from the start, in both technique and choreography. [Generalization] For bands and corps, the functional revolution began with Precision Style drill in the 1960's, wherein the pursuit of pure forms and movement was paramount (via Bainum and Casavant's 22.5 inch stride, the last contribution of music education to marching technique, and a debatable one at that, with the military training of Casavant). We saw the same functional revolution continue for many bands who left the more showy "Precision Style" or "Big 10" style [How are 'precision style' and 'Big 10' more showy? Why is corps style more functional than precision style? If precision style is about pure form and movement, what constitutes corps style? Why did bands leave one functional style, precision, for another, corps. Author does a poor job of defining/comparing the three styles.] for the more functional "Corps Style" in the 1970's. We see a second functional revolution in the 1980's with the popularization of free-form drill. However, these functional revolutions were incomplete, and as a result, they are still frequently described as particular "styles," rather than methods, of marching. [Didn't the author refer to them as "styles"?] In fact, the more functional the drill became, the less pedagogy was involved in technique. By the time DCI had finished reforming marching technique in the 1980's, there was little method left to the madness. [Reform means to improve. If it was improved why was there madness? Author states things have improved, but concludes it's for the worse? How had DCI, the organization, reformed marching technique?] The only thing left for a performer to do was to hang on to the formation for dear life and hope there would be no banana peel in the way. By the 1990's, the administration of marching technique amounted to little more than the speculations of the unstudied and incumbent. [again, generalization. Would be more objective if specific corps, or specific instructors, were identified. Also would work better if he compared specific examples in the present with examples from the past.] All four stages of the functional revolution were necessary for marching technique. [Unsupported speculation. Where's the proof? Does it mean marching technique can only be learned by stepping through all 4 stages?] As each stage of new drill, functionality clarified the purpose of marching, and the more simplified technique clarified the drill in return. However, marching technique in drum corps would become so simplified that drum corps would be brought precariously close to the point of lacking control over the body, shockingly demonstrated by the DCI 1995 World Champion runner-ups, where two individuals who failed to demonstrate improvisatory skills of other members, and had their technical skills exposed on an unprecedented scale at that level of competition. [there's nothing wrong with 'simplifying' technique. I think what the author is trying to say is that technique is no longer being taught. This whole section could've been much more concise. It's too wordy.] Gross over-simplification of technique has brought with it speculation about the approach and purpose of marching technique - speculations which range from the glorification of speed or complexity, to methodologies based on non-human objects such as bicycles, [author is not very clear on what it is he's trying to say. Using 'simplification' and 'complexity' in the same sentence adds to the confusion. What is complex?] to a rigid adherence to principles of movement removed from both context and research. ['speculation'? 'rigid adherence'? again author confuses by mixing opposites. Generalizations.] All three approaches to transform our "designs" into living, [side note: author has chided others for using the word 'design'.] moving choreography - via change of location (Blue Devils), shape (Cadets) and orientation (Cavaliers) - have yet to complete the functional revolution which would place our art on secure footing. Our efforts to revolutionize drill since the 1960's require a complimentary revolution in technique - not a development of style or a consensus of tradition, but a reformation toward integrated, correct marching in the service of its choreography, the change of location, shape and orientation. I believe ["I believe" is not a good phrase to stick in a paper that hopes to win over acceptability by being objective.] the functional marching revolution championed in recent decades by drum corps has yet to begin because for want of a codified functional marching [If it's yet to begin why did the author list 4 stages? Why would a codified technique mark the beginning of a revolution?] technique, which was established briefly in 1989 and will be mentioned later. To understand the importance and implications of marching technique in the functional revolution, we must look at organizations which have experience with functional marching, codified or otherwise. Four such organizations are studied in this paper, including: the Blue Devils Drum and Bugle Corps; the Cadets of Bergen Country Drum and Bugle Corps; the Rocky Mountain Magic Drum and Bugle Corps; the Duchesne High School Marching Band. These organizations provide complete (and incomplete) case studies in the functional marching revolution. [This last portion comes the closest to being a 'purpose' of what this paper is about. Too late to matter. One stretches the bounds of credible research by including incomplete studies.] III. Four Case Studies. A. Concord, California. My memories of Concord, California 1983 was that of a much drier area than Bakersfield, where I was born and raised. In fact, it seemed something of an apocalyptic version of the state, if only because of the time I spent at MARS (Marching and Rehearsal Site). I feel sorry for any corps that lacks such miserable conditions of field and facility. It makes one much more appreciative of the opportunity to perform on smooth fields for large appreciative audiences, and it helps separate those who do so for the activity and art from those who do so for the prestige of affiliation with it. [Author sidetrips with personal reflections. Personal reflections are inappropriate in this purview.] I was instructed in marching by John Opedisano, who taught me three essential things about the Blue Devils technique. The first was that of the importance of using the hips to change direction, and I was fortunate to have veterans marching near me who modeled this element well. As a result, I enjoyed some success with this aspect of marching, according to Steve Sanger who assisted with instruction that year. Mr. Opedisano and those I marched with showed me that directional movement was both driven and controlled by the hips through the ability to discriminate angles of direction change. I was disappointed to hear from a friend who marched with the Devils years later that this element was compromised by a doctrine which advocated the legs (rather than hips) as the sole determinant of direction. This was adopted with the idea that slides could then require less torso twist, and thus allow for greater lung capacity. I am always very sorry to find marching technique compromised for the sake of the music which accompanies it. [Author interjects personal feelings about marching technique being compromised. ] The second thing Mr. Opedisano taught me was that the "look" of the Blue Devils technique placed emphasis on subtlety. One element of this subtlety was the elimination of toe lift for the sake of a smoother look. I can't recall any talk about the advantage of ease with this innovation, nor about it being more natural than the frilly alternative. This is odd, because economy of effort was a maxim I was taught that year, and which I grew to appreciate. It would have been well justified. Nevertheless, Mr. Opedisano explained to me once that this effect was valued as being akin to ballet, which points the foot more in line with the leg in order to extend the visual impression of the body's length. A functional rose by any other name. The third essential thing I learned about marching technique from the Blue Devils was that the straightness of the line of the body was important. For some reason, the Blue Devils valued height, and went to lengths (as they do today) to see that their uniform design did not seriously interfere with that impression. Looking back, I find it odd that so many took from their contributions to marching a characteristic enthusiasm for spreading the legs, bending the knees, and leaning back and wailing. Whatever the case, the Devils went to great lengths with me to see that I was standing as straight as possible. The drum major would frequently walk up to me while playing to pull my hips back under me and push my upper body forward, which took me most of the season to learn to do on my own. To this day, I am still not certain if we thought there was a better, more functional reason for that uncomfortable responsibility for the muscles, other than appearance, although I suspect in the back of our minds we believed there must be. B. Garfield, New Jersey. I'm not certain I've ever been to New Jersey. I've lived in New York where I've attended school, been to Pennsylvania and Washington D.C., but for some reason, I've never had a good enough reason to see anything from New Jersey that I couldn't also see on PBS. I often worry that drum corps may find itself in similar circumstances, where audiences would rather wait for the movie than buy the book. I also worry about drum corps' support of the material which makes for good books, and how effective we are in promoting knowledge in drum corps, to say nothing of literacy. [More unnecessary personal reflection. And author takes a jab at New Jersey.] In one of my visits to New York last year, I presented a paper on choreographed marching to a Visual and Cultural Studies Conference at the University of Rochester. At that Conference I devoted half of my address to viewing the high camera tape of the 1987 Cadets as a demonstration of the artistic merit of choreographed marching. This doesn't make me an expert or even experienced in free-form drill. Just an advocate. In fact, were it not for the opportunity the Devils had of watching their show from the press box while on a non-scheduled stop during our 1983 tour in the South, I would never had seen the Cadets perform live (this is not because I don't see drum corps shows - I've attended a show every Summer since 1979 with the exception of one or two years. I haven't seen the Cadets because they just don't make it out this way). [All of this personal reflection could be chopped.] I remember while watching them at this performance and being subconsciously mystified [How does one know they've been 'subconsciously mystified'? Is this a metaphor?] as to why (and how) a corps would use so much of "that one type of movement," which I later found to be "Structural" movement, the most difficult of the nine types. [Author assumes reader is familiar with the nine types.] I found out the "how" by studying the PBS low-camera angles of 1983 Finals, as well as successive years. The Cadets ability to maintain a formation with clarity through a difficult move could be called superhuman, were it not for the "simplified" marching technique which made this possible. [Is this a plus or minus for the Cadets? A simplified method is often desired.] By concentrating on ensemble marching (which most of them to this day take for technique, I have found), [Who is 'them'? 'Most of them' is a bad generalization. How is ensemble marching taken for technique?] the Cadets circumvented the usual procedure of correct execution via correct and uniform technique and established something of an improvisational approach to marching. [What is the usual procedure? Use of the word 'correct' is redundant the way this sentence is structured. Perhaps author meant 'of' instead of 'via'.] And why shouldn't they have? The demands of modern drum corps drill were outstripping at a phenomenal rate the value of four directional variables used in basics. [Author seems to be saying the Cadets made the right choice, based on demand, by teaching the marching technique they use.] The abandonment of technique was largely necessary for the Cadets [Above author states it was a simplified technique, now he's stating they abandoned technique.] functional revolution, inasmuch as marching a great deal of structural movement makes it necessary to accommodate a larger margin of error in directional discrimination. [Author seems to be saying that a tradeoff was involved. Cadets teach easier, or no, technique, but they pushed their own revolution in marching.] Because a formal, methodical approach to marching technique (particularly one with four variables) makes individuals less flexible to changes in drill, it was neccessary [sp] [Necessary is misspelled throughout this paper. Misspelled words in a research paper is a grievous error.] that the Cadets leave this element to the discretion of the individual marcher, in large measure. [What does "in large measure" mean? What element? The element to be flexible? Once again author is not clear.] The Cadets marching execution is more a product of ensemble technique than marching technique. I don't pretend to know exactly what makes this ensemble technique so effective in maintaining formations, though I could venture some guesses. It would be interesting to hear about were it published. [I think author meant 'read about' instead of 'hear about'. Also, that last sentence could be excised, as it offers nothing concrete to the purpose of this paper.] In the meantime, my interests lie more with quality of execution than quantity. [Author is not clear. What does quantity of execution mean? Author makes a mistake by revealing his own bias by saying "my interests". This sentence also changes the direction and purpose of this paper. Instead of comparing the four case studies the paper will shift focus and condemn bad execution (Why Johnny Can't March, section V). This could have been better accomplished by analysing [sp] the strengths and weaknesses of each method objectively.] Regardless of its effectiveness, ensemble technique as a substitute for marching technique is not without its cost. Those "whiplash" moves cost individuals posture, balance and even the upright position. On June 19 of this year, I had a conversation with a Cadet (who I'll call Mr. Smith) via E-mail wherein I found my first (and, to date, my only) explanation of Cadet marching technique. In response to my concerns about the influence of Cadet technique on drum corps, he responds: Smith: "If it's screwing up drum corps to use prep steps to avoid jerking your body around so that you can play better [again, this is a technical sacrifice in the name of musical artistry], then "screwing it up" is a good thing." Rice: "Oh, I agree, they ought to use running blocks and cleats while they're at it...get down on all fours. A prep step doesn't mean they can maintain an upright position while marching [one of the distinctive features of the Upright Method is a prep step that maintains uprightness]." Smith: "If it's a mistake to use the stop and go so that forward and backward direction changes stay centered over the body..." Rice: "I know of two Cadets who failed to keep their direction change within the base of their support. And I know of many more who get away with it because they feel leaning into and out of direction changes is acceptable - perhaps even exciting. You can call it "technique" if you want, but you can't call it balance." Smith: "...with better control over the center of gravity and momentum, then so be it." Rice: "Only a corps without control would find it necessary to stop movement to change direction." Smith: "If it's screwing up marching to use a forward and backward step style that is more similar to a natural step {author's note: I've always wondered what natural backwards movement looked like] excepting that the toe is exagerated [sp] to make playing more comfortable, then that's fine by me [why sacrifice natural movement for the exaggerated toe?}." Rice: "How...is your toe supposed to help you play better? Particularly when you're about to fall on your ass? {hindsight, it appears that his statement needed a coma before "excepting that the toe is exagerated [sp]}." Smith: "It seems to me that the Cadet's style is screwing up drum corps in the same way that adding valves and grounding the pit screwed up drum corps....that is, it's screwing it up by making it better." Rice: "I couldn't agree more. Its making it "better" in ways that detract from the art these things accompany." Smith: [In response to my comment that "technique promotes dignity, not to mention upright movement"] "One incident does not define a technique program." Rice: "Not for those who don't see it coming." Smith: If you would actually study the Cadets technique and then actually watch them, then maybe you would have a clue." Rice: "...You bring up some important principles, but if after learning them you can't keep your body perpendicular its all for naught. Nothing in the management of your center of gravity will assure your structure of the upright position. Balance and align your posture and then you can talk about controlling the center of gravity. A little knowledge is a dangerous thing." [Author uses an email debate, one that he took part in, as reference material? This is beyond questionable, it's irresponsible for a researcher to do this. There's no good way to verify the accuracy of this reference. Also notice how the author injected some of his own thoughts in the middle of the debate, giving himself the upper hand. It is leading the reader, and it is unfair since it doesn't give the other member of th [sp] debate a chance to do the same.] Its disappointing to me when I find people critical of research. [If research is being criticized then perhaps there are holes in the research. Good solid research gains credibility because of the lack of holes.] I often wish individuals would spend more time looking at videotape and less time relying on the perspectives of their instructors. ["I often wish" is an appeal that deviates from objectivity.] What this and other drum corps veterans don't understand [What this what? How can 'this' not understand? Which drum corps veterans? Reads as a generalization, and is presumptuous and condescending.] is that uprightness is the key to standing and moving with good balance and posture. They will not consider the idea [How does the author know 'they' will not consider? Perhaps 'they' have and accepted the tradeoff of execution for speed.] that speed and responsiveness to Structural and any other type of movement can be enhanced by marching technique (rather than mere psychology and visually directed effort), if that method is responsibly administered and based on understanding and enhancing natural ability, as is the case with the Upright Method: "We simply need to refine the natural abilities and instincts that we have via balance, alignment, and uprightness" (Appendix 1). [This sentence is much too long. It has too many ideas expressed. Reader has a hard time staying focused since it branches. Author probably meant to use enhanced instead of enhancing, which is improper use. Psychology? Of the mind? Visually directed effort? Author needs to clarify his thoughts. Reader is left with no choice but to come to their own conclusion as to what this sentence is trying to convey.] Instead, the Cadets continue to administer what appears to be an executional solution to a technical problem. [The last sentence speculates, by using the word 'appears', and needs clarification. Is it good, bad, or indifferent that 'an executional solution' can be proffered 'to a technical problem'? How does this section reinforce the Functional Revolution?] summary 1.) Too many misspelled words. SUGGESTION: Always use a spellchecker [sp]. A research paper loses credibility with even one misspelled word. Also, always have someone proofread your paper for improper sentence structures. 2.) Too wordy. SUGGESTION: Cut out all the personal reflections. This alone would shrink the paper to a manageable, and bearable, size. Simply sentences, try not put more than one thought per sentence. 3.) Avoid using first person accounts. 4.) No stated purpose. The title suggests the paper will compare case studies and show how technique has advanced. The paper branched into many thoughts, including degradation of technique, condemnation of modern drum corps marching, condemnation of RAMD, preserving methods of teaching, and fallacies of marching. SUGGESTION: Include a purpose, what it is you hope to prove, near the top. Try not to stray from the purpose; keep the paper within the confines of the purpose. 5.) Many terms are undefined. Never presume that the reader knows the definitions of used terms. SUGGESTION: Either define the term when it is used (ex. Rec.Arts.Marching.Drumcorps, RAMD, an internet discussion group about drumcorps) or footnote it with a reference to where the reader can find the definition. 6.) Never reference your own material. It's interesting to note this paper, excepting the fallacies section, has little substance without all the references to Stuart's previous work. 7.) Never reference second hand sources, like quotes from newspapers. Always use the information from a direct source. 8.) Never modify material from a reference. 9.) Never ever use a reference that cannot be verified, like an email debate. 10.) Too many generalizations. 11.) Too many assumptions, speculations, and conclusions drawn from non-supportive data. 12.) Keep the paper as objective as possible. Subjectivity should be avoided. Never use words that are emotive. Never use ad hominem attacks. Never insult anyone. So, the conclusion of this reviewer is that Stuart gets an F and should redo his research. Thank you, and good night everybody.