1. The BE Forum
2. Content and Context
3. Strength vs. Leverage
4. The Limitations of Video
5. I Am Not a Guru
6. Skeptics and Denial of Evidence
(scroll down below the titles)
1. The BE Forum
I am a longtime member at trumpetherald.com, otherwise known as the TH. In the past, someone would post there,
asking me about starting a BE forum, but I would always squash the idea for a variety of reasons.
Then, several years ago I was asked the same thing by a few of the TH moderators, and the owner of the site, Todd
Davidson. I gave my usual objections - which had more to do with the fairness of me being a moderator than anything
- but they simply blew them off and said that none of the arguments meant anything to them. So, the ball was in my
court, and I had to put up or shut up.
Since I do my best to pay attention when opportunity knocks, I accepted Todd's generous offer, and opened the BE
What an experience! Most fun for me has been the privilege of connecting all of you together. Thanks to emails over
the past several years, I knew how many super-articulate BE-influenced players were out there, but the forum has
now brought that fact home to everyone.
Of all of the dedicated method forums on TH, the BE forum is the most popular. There you will find a staggering number
of posts which cover every aspect of the method. And as a further benefit, you get to hear it described from many
perspectives; not only from my point of view, but also in creative new ways contributed by BE forum members.
Check out the forum! The link is at the top of this page.
2. Content and Context
NOTE: Some of this was originally posted on the Trumpet Herald BE forum.
Progress is a precious commodity, as those players who have been stuck on one level for years can testify
The BE exercises trigger breakthroughs, sometimes small, sometimes large. But breakthroughs are more common when
the player has good context skills.
On one level, specific exercises are the content. In practicing the exercises, it is also the responsibility of the player to
recognize the significance of any breakthroughs (consciously or unconsciously), to maximize their effect, and to
eventually group the breakthroughs together into tangible, usable progress. This latter, more general process, is the
On another level, the lips movements are the content. How those lip movements combine to form useful shapes is the
Some players are good at focusing on the content, but have poor contextual skills. Maybe they are young, and haven't
developed them yet. Or, maybe they are severely left-brain dominant. Major researchers have concluded that the
dominant right-brain context function is more primary to higher states of consciousness, and to an understanding of
the world around us, than is the dominant left-brained content function.
Players who are too focused on content embody the Churchill quote in the book, about stumbling over truth without
recognizing it. For some, having a private lesson teacher is the way to go, as the teacher can point out the context
To learn from the BE book requires a certain amount of contextual skills.
The question is, can you recognize and maximize small breakthroughs? Or, do positive effects simply appear and then
disappear, without your understanding how to replicate them?
For example, if you manage to get the RI exercises to work a single time, then you will eventually get them to work
every single time if you have good contextual skills.
Contextual skills are critical. The obvious question is, how do you go about developing context skills, especially if such
skills are largely unconscious? There will be an entire chapter devoted to this in my next trumpet book - whenever that
3. Strength vs. Leverage
Much has been written about the strength of lips necessary to play higher notes on trumpet. For decades, players
have advocated various techniques for building lip strength, such as the pencil exercise, lip buzzing, playing G in the
staff for 20 minutes (Cat Anderson), Facial-Flex, P.E.T.E. (Warburton), and more. But other players have argued
against the idea of building lip muscles, saying that such activities create stiffness and loss of flexibility. They also
point out how even young children, under the right conditions, can play very high. If this is possible, how can raw
strength be that important?
What's missing is the concept of leverage. Raw lip strength can be useful, but if it is used inefficiently in an
embouchure environment, it will be wasted. In the Balanced Embouchure approach, the idea is to take advantage of
the fact that the lips move. When you properly alter the shape of the lips by using dynamic leverage, it focuses the
lips, and - in part - makes it easier to play in that elusive higher register.
In the example of the child, we can compare hitting high notes to lifting weights. We know that a child can easily lift
many times his or her weight if the proper leverage is used. Similarly, a child - or anybody - can play high on a trumpet
if the lips are in a perfectly leveraged position.
The Roots of Leverage
Consider your lips at their most relaxed position, which is called repose. In this position, your lips are not flexed in any
way, and the shape is dictated by nature's variety. Lips at repose can be thin or thick, relatively flat or filled with
peaks and valleys (with the possibility of a top lip protrusion, which is covered in the BE book), and have differing skin
textures. Further, the entire mouth may be large or small. So, it is clear that, from a starting position of repose,
everyone's lips are not created equal.
At repose, it is difficult to get much range out of the horn, as your lips need to flex to some degree in order to ascend
in pitch. This is where the problems begin - or stated more bluntly, "the contortions begin," - as the eventual
requirement to play higher prompts you into searching for ways to hit those notes. If you are like most players, you
quickly discover that "repose" and the position needed to play higher are very different.
But, there are remarkable exceptions to this. Both Harry James and Maynard Ferguson, in their younger days, could sail
far above the staff, and yet it looked like they weren't even playing. This has led some to believe that a perfectly
relaxed embouchure is "the secret," that one must strive to keep facial muscles stationary at all times. However,
players who adopt this idea rarely end up playing well, much less as easily as Maynard or Harry. And for good reason.
Both of those guys had a leveraged setup at repose. The rest of us don't.
We aren't created equal. But, we can do something about it.
James Morrison did. So did Armando Ghitalla and James Stamp. They overcame their inefficiencies at repose by figuring
out different ways to change the shape of their lips. Morrison fell into the usage of air pockets. Ghitalla rolled his lips
in. Stamp did pitch bending exercises. Each of them discovered "the great equalizer," a way to move the lips and
generate leverage where none existed before.
Certainly, there are many ways to create more leverage, but in my experience, some techniques are more dynamic and
effective than others. Lip leverage, as generated through the doing the BE exercises, is developed by directly
prompting the lips to experience a greater range of motion, which eventually encourages a continuous flexing of the
lips - from rolled out to rolled in - associated with lower and higher notes, respectively.
Further, the exercises tend to generate a "moving strength," the ability of lips to move in a pressurized environment.
This is somewhat different from the kind of "static strength" developed by lip exercise devices and long tones. "Moving
strength" is more like coordination, while "static strength" is associated with brute force.
To better understand the difference, let's suppose that you are on one side of a door, and a 10 year old child is on the
other. Your goal is to keep the child from pushing open the door. Easy, right? You simply push against the door, using
your superior strength to keep it closed. Brute force wins.
But performing on an instrument is not so simple. A better example is, with the child still pushing on the other side of
the door, attempt to keep the door open exactly one inch. Now you have a bigger problem, as you have to instantly
and precisely adjust to changes in pressure brought against the door from the unpredictable child. In other words, you
have to be strong enough to resist the opposing force, but also possess enough agility to react to the variations in
pressure, and keep the door in exactly the right position.
If that sounds impossible, then welcome to the world of the brass player!
NOTE - It's important to understand that leverage, properly used, is not a "trick," or not just another setup which
requires a different kind of brute force. Rather, it's the ability to take advantage of the lips most important
characteristic: they move. Learning to move the lips properly is a primary skill.
"...form the habit of keeping the lips in motion while playing. This will train the lip muscles properly..."
Herbert L. Clarke
4. The Limitations of Video
Many times I have heard the question, "Can you include a DVD so I can see how to do the exercises?"
For specific reasons, I continue to reject the idea.
I have plenty of experience with video, as I spent years being paid as a video editor. So, making a video is not the
problem. My experience in education, however, tells me that video, in the specific case of learning the BE exercises, is
overrated, and can actually increase the confusion of the player.
My reasoning is directly connected to the idea that BE works for all players. How is it possible that a method -
focusing on lip position - could work for everyone? Players are physically different, including lip structure. This is
obvious. Anyone can see it with their own eyes.
The answer is that BE does not teach a single lip position into which the player is forced. Instead, the player learns
specific exercises which guide his or her lips into the most efficient position throughout the full range of the
Now, this is something very different than one-size-fits-all, and it naturally results in outcomes which correspondingly
look different from player to player. To illustrate this, there are embouchure pictures in the book, showing a few
examples of how visually different players can look, while still doing the exercises correctly.
The main problem with a video is that players try to copy the video exactly, and do not allow the lips to develop their
own strategy. Video leaves a powerful imprint, especially to those who are so-called visual learners. I have already
heard from a few players who watched the Uwe Zaiser clips on YouTube, and tried to force their lips into his exact
positioning. While Uwe is a great player, and does all the BE the exercises brilliantly, it is a mistake to consider his lip
position an any sort of specific model for BE. His approach to learning BE - which was arrived at by doing the exercises
as described in the book, by listening to how the exercises should sound, and by experiencing how those exercises feel
- is the approach that I have found works best over a wide student population. Those who watch his video, in the
hopes of seeing exactly how to move their lips, are fighting against that approach.
I work with so-called visual learners all the time. They tend to be very left brain dominant, and relate poorly to how
things feel. Instead, they fixate on the idea that visual analysis is the ONLY thing which can help them solve their
problem. While that may be a good approach for accounting or engineering, it has limited effectiveness when applied to
the nearly invisible, extremely subtle continuous lip movements which are part of the feeling process in learning to do
these exercises. Visual cues can be a help in getting some players in "the lip position ballpark," but at some point, they
need to let go and trust the feeling experience.
Are there benefits to seeing a video? Of course. For one, there is the factor of inspiration. It's impressive to watch
someone rather easily do this seemingly impossible stuff.
Another reason is to show that the exercises can actually be done. I've watched my students do them for years, and I
sometimes forget how skeptical that people can be when confronted with the BE book and CD. For example, there is
one guy - a prominent player in The Netherlands - who continually doubted the effectiveness of BE. As part of his
argument, he posted in a Dutch forum that RO #4 was not possible as written, and that I had edited the CD to
deceive players into believing that it was!!
After Uwe posted his video, this guy became noticeably quieter in his criticism. :-)
The videos posted by Uwe are here.
Again, please note that this is how HE does it. The specifics of your embouchure will vary.
5. I Am Not a Guru
Why the BE Model is Different
I am not a guru. Nor a chop-doc.
Words are laden with meaning. In the context of my brass teaching/learning philosophy, both of those words - guru
and doctor - widely miss the mark.
Guru, part 1
At it's core, the guru model is about surrendering to the wisdom of the master, and becoming completely subservient
to his or her judgment.
In a spiritual context, this may be a good idea, as many believe that a self-realized master is literally an embodiment of
pure knowledge, and is essential for guiding you into higher states of understanding. But in the world of brass playing,
is such omniscience from a teacher really possible, or necessary...or even desirable?
For the teachers who want you to buy in to the guru model, the answer is yes. Gurus confidently proclaim, "You need
me!" They will give you a variety of reasons why it is important to give up responsibility for your development and
place it in their hands - for a large fee, of course. "You can't figure out your own problems," and "You can't learn to
play from a book," are favorite mantras. Eventually, many players begin to accept such dogma as fact.
Gurus come in all stripes. One type, the different strokes guru, creates the image of omniscience by framing the
problem in such a way that only he can solve it.
His frame of reference, which he presents as absolute truth, is the philosophy known as "different strokes." Mr. Guru
argues that, since each player is physically different from another, it is important to find the exact method or
technique which specifically address the needs of each player. In other words, the guru chooses the technique to fit
the player. Naturally, with so many different physical types and methods, Mr. Guru (jack of all trades and master of
none) cleverly positions himself as the only one skilled enough to pinpoint which method will best match your needs
and lead you into the promised land.
At first glance, the different strokes idea seems reasonable. As people, we ARE different. Physical differences alone are
undeniable. But, upon closer examination, the limitations of different strokes as some sort of philosophical truth soon
becomes apparent. We may look different, but we tend to function in similar ways. And function - not structure -
usually determines our level of success in a given skill.
Regarding embouchure, you are not prisoner to a particular lip structure. The lips are not static - they move. Any
structural limitation, such as a top lip protrusion, can be overcome by changing the shape of the lips. Function trumps
And that, of course, is where BE enters the picture. In BE, functionality is built-in to the method. As opposed to the
different strokes mentality, where players are resigned to their structural limitations, BE takes advantage of universal
principles regarding how the lips are actually designed to function, and empowers players to change their fate. Thus,
the different strokes guru becomes irrelevant, as the supposed need for his "matchmaking" services is eliminated.
But, the guru model lives on. Ego's crave feeding. It's very seductive to want to see yourself as the all-knowing guru
who can fix people. One prominent teacher actually compares himself to Yoda.
May the Force be with you! Or, maybe not.
Guru, Part 2
In the guru model, the power lies in the teacher.
In the BE model, the power lies in the knowledge.
Knowledge alone can be the catalyst for positive transformation. This is especially true when a traditional
understanding is completely backwards.
For example, consider the work of John Sarno, a physician at the Rusk Institute of Rehabilitation Medicine in New York.
He realized that back pain rarely responded well to either the conservative or drastic medical treatments offered by
the traditional medical system. He also saw poor results from many complementary therapy modalities. A huge amount
of money was being spent, with little evidence of success.
Upon further investigation, he came to the startling conclusion that most pain does not originate from a specific
location, but from the mind of the patient. He began teaching his patients how to bypass the completely irrelevant
anatomical location of the pain and deal exclusively with the emotional causation. Coining his new approach
"knowledge therapy," Sarno experienced tremendous success. The process he developed was extremely low cost,
since the majority of patients resolved their pain simply by reading the knowledge therapy books and applying the
information. For the few that continued to struggle, he recommended the assistance of a professional counselor to
deal with core emotional issues.
Parallels between Sarno's method and BE are obvious. From the BE book, the student reads about the actual role of
lips - a very different role than is assigned by traditional pedagogy - and learns how to move the lips in order to begin
making progress. This BE version of "knowledge therapy" alters the perception of the student, and leads to success, as
evidenced by BE testimonials from around the world (from people I've never met). And for the student who might
struggle a little with the concept, a few lessons from a teacher who understands BE are usually all that is required.
You can spend hundreds - or thousands - of dollars taking lessons from a self-styled Yoda, and hope that he can fix
you. Or, you can get fundamental knowledge from a book, and begin to take responsibility for your own development.
The choice, as always, is yours.
Players email me all the time, asking me to diagnose their chops symptoms. I don't diagnose symptoms.
I'm not a doctor.
A long time ago, doctor used to mean "teacher." These days, we associate the term with allopathic medicine (drug
therapy), which gives the word an entirely different spin.
Medical doctors excel at life-saving emergency procedures. They boldly seek out the causal agent - such as a bleeding
wound - and deal with it (by sewing it up). Unfortunately, in just about everything else, doctors pretend that causality
doesn't even exist. Instead, they play a game called symptom management, hopeful that the patient will eventually
recover if they actively suppress a localized symptom long enough.
But as Sarno and a host of other health care professionals have pointed out, symptoms are the outpicturing of a
deeper causal agent. A single hidden cause can generate a legion of seemingly unrelated symptoms. To clear up
symptoms, the cause must be addressed. Chasing after symptoms is like talking to the wrong end of the horse.
And yet, symptoms are obvious, and a deeper cause is not. Long ago, doctors figured out that the general public
would accept symptom diagnosis and suppression (drug treatment) as a substitute for actual healing. And so, the
medical model was born, a model where categorizing symptoms has risen to a level of primary importance, and where
symptom management is considered as good as a cure.
Doctors are basically symptom chasers. This makes dealing with health issues a complex proposition, as multiple
effects (diseases) frequently spring from the same cause (see the Sarno comments) , and all of those different
diseases then require different treatments (which generate even more side-effects). As a result, doctors stay busy.
Symptoms are good for business.
What's good for the doctor is also good for the chop-doc.
With a public conditioned to accept symptom treatment, the chop-doc has a built-in clientele. Players line up to see
the chop-doc, looking for a diagnosis. His "common-sense" advice will typically include items such as:
You need to open your throat.
You must use less mouthpiece pressure.
You don't breathe correctly.
Note: This is a stereotype. Like gurus, chop-docs come in many stripes.
In recommending a treatment, the chop-doc works almost exclusively from the level of effect, which the
pre-conditioned student recognizes as "reasonable." Using a variety of techniques (the bag of tricks) he will attempt to
directly influence the throat tension, mouthpiece pressure, and breathing pattern of the student. Most often, such an
approach simply triggers even more effects, and adds to the confusion.
Even so, the student thanks the chop-doc for his noble efforts. After all, even in failure, everything the chop-doc
recommended made complete sense to the student.
Changing this mindset is the aim of BE. In BE, there is no symptom diagnosis, treatment or suppression. Instead, the
BE method is designed to steer the student into experiencing change at a causal level, which means addressing the
shape, positioning, and coordination of the lips. As many players have discovered, symptoms usually melt away when
the BE exercises are done properly.
If I'm neither guru or chop-doc, then what is my teaching approach?
I prefer the term "coach."
It's a word which expresses my world view regarding:
1. Who I am, including moral standards and integrity.
2. My personal style, a partner rather than a guru.
3. My model for helping others, based on evidence rather than belief.
4. How I position accountability, keeping power in the hands of the student.
5. How I facilitate the process of personal change.
Covering these points in detail will have to wait until another time (and probably another book). For now, here are
some thoughts on point 4, the way that I address accountability:
As renowned golf coach David Leadbetter said, "I've has a lot of success in a lot of different areas but in the end, as a
teacher, you're just assisting. In the end, the player does it. A coach or teacher is just there to guide."
I have witnessed many struggling players be transformed by exercises in the Balanced Embouchure. Sometimes the
results are instantaneous - like magic - which can lead the student to believe that I was responsible for fixing him.
From the perspective of coach, it's important in such cases that I quickly set him straight, and credit the exercises -
and the student - instead of myself. This is not some sort of false humility. Success must never be viewed as
dependent on a particular teacher, but instead as an ordinary consequence of doing the right thing. At every
opportunity, the coach must reinforce this idea to the student, and lead him to accept complete responsibility for his
success, or failure.
Leadbetter again: "My teaching tenet really is to give each individual an understanding of their own game plan so they
can continue improving on their own without necessarily having me - or anybody - there to assist them."
Ultimately, you are your own best teacher. It's a model for living. We too often blame our lack of success on outside
influences. Sooner or later, you discover that real stability comes from looking inwards, and finding out, for example,
why your buttons are pushed. In philosophical terms, it's about being inner actualized, rather than outer reactive.
Too often, students become conditioned to depend on a certain teacher, or mouthpiece, or other particular condition.
The goal of inner actualization is to become teacher-proof, mouthpiece-proof, and condition-proof; to be able to
experiment - and enjoy - a variety of experiences without fearing the negative consequences of losing your frame of
When you understand how you function as a brass player, and take full responsibility for that functioning, all the rest
falls into place. As a coach, it's my privilege to partner with you for the purpose of reaching that goal.
6. Skeptics and Denial of Evidence
I don't dislike skeptics. Skepticism has value, as there is such a thing as reasonable doubt. If you are skeptical, but
open to good evidence, then great. What turns me off are people who are "professional doubters." They are
excessively proud of their skepticism and will do almost anything to justify their negative beliefs. To them, a "fact" is
something that only matters if it supports their beliefs.
For example, I have often given skeptics the factual evidence as requested, only to see them waffle and change their
evidence standard. The issue of professional endorsements comes to mind. In the early days of BE, skeptics would
smugly say, "If BE is so great, then why don't you have testimonials from pro players?" Never mind that BE was a new
approach, and that few professional players had even heard of it. When all of that changed, and pros began endorsing
it, some of those skeptics just shifted to a new argument, such as "why doesn't Bud Herseth recommend it?", or
something equally ridiculous. For these people, "skepticism" is really a way of saying "BE violates my beliefs, and
therefore it can't be effective." In my experience, most of this is based on fear. People sometimes lack a strong
internal sense of self, and create a substitute by clinging to certain external positions, such as professional or social
status. Any threat to those positions becomes an actual threat to their identity - or, at least, who they think they
Even further off-the-charts is the self-deluded skeptic. To some degree, we all have differing world views. But, this is
the guy who is so completely sold on his viewpoint that he creates his own reality, and actually alters his perception
to fit the "facts" as he knows them. In other words, he sees and hears what he wants to see and hear. When others
don't share his perception, he claims that he is "more sensitive." The human mind is very suggestible. If a person wants
to see the Emperor wearing clothes, then the clothes will become visible.
The delusional skeptic doesn't just avoid facts; he ignores them completely. This is the guy who, for instance, will
strongly deny that lips can move to different position - especially rolled in - and still achieve a good tone. He "knows"
from their own experience that I am wrong - that if an embouchure doesn't conform to his visual standard, then a
good tone is outright impossible. What he fails to grasp is the tens of thousands of lessons that I spent in development
of the process. After all that effort, why would I purposely steer players into achieving a bad sound? And further, what
about the testimonials? Included in the testimonials are statements from professional orchestral players, who claim to
have significantly improved their sound quality. Surely, everyone can agree that professional orchestral players are
well-trained and "sensitive enough" to know the qualities of a superior sound, right?
Unfortunately, the self-deluded skeptic will simply shrug off the evidence. He will insist that he can hear the difference
and you can't, and nothing will convince him otherwise.
In dealing with the various degrees of skepticism towards BE, I've tried several approaches - logical reasoning, direct
confrontation, etc.. In the end, the best approach is often to just ignore the skeptic and move on. There are hundreds
of thousands of struggling players out there. It's better to focus on those who want help, rather than attempting to
convince those who don't.
7. The First Article From the Old BE Site: The March 2003 ITG Review
I was originally going to write something else for the first article, but fate intervened. ITG published a review of my
book, and while some of you will think that I am nit-picking, I feel a need to clarify some "small" misrepresentations
presented by the journal reviewer.
NOTE: ITG is the International Trumpet Guild. They publish a quarterly journal.
But first, I want to thank ITG for asking to look at the book, and for publishing a relatively neutral review. Considering
how easy it is to put anything in a negative light, I appreciate that John Korak - the reviews editor - attempted to
stick with exposition rather than opinion.
ITG has rather strict policies about reprinting articles, so I will merely excerpt a few of the reviewer's points here, that
in my view are - at least - borderline inaccurate. The reviewer was Arthur Molitierno, who I have never met, from
Wright State University.
Point by point:
1. The book review opened with the reviewers statement, "Designed primarily for middle school and high school
players..." This is incorrect. It's true that my "lab" is mostly players in that age group, but the book is designed for
anyone who craves a powerful embouchure. Of course, it's a big plus when players in their formative years gets
exposed to these exercises. But there is very little in the book which specifically targets beginners or younger players.
2. Next the reviewer says: "According to the author, the player can in most cases... "throw out the Arban book, the
Clarke book - although he does suggest exercises from it in his lesson plan - and all other books of etudes because
they have nothing to do with the basic problem, which is lip position."
That is a little misleading. The quote is correct, but he left out the first part of the paragraph, which begins with,
"When struggling with embouchure mechanics..." Obviously, Arban and Clarke have their place in the trumpet world. It
kind of bugs me to have to make this point, as it seems obvious, but he makes it sound like I consider the books to be
worthless. Further, he implies that I use Clarke's exercises as part of my embouchure development method. That's
false. I mentioned the Clarke technical book - but no specific exercises - in the suggested lesson plan section, not for
chops building, but for fingering and general technique.
3. "As a practicing teacher, Smiley owes much to Jerome Callet, Claude Gordon, and Louis Maggio, and indirectly, to
Can't figure out how Reinhardt got in there! I guess that it sounded good to the reviewer, as Reinhardt was mentioned
- for other reasons - twice in the book. But, he had virtually zero impact on me, as I was unaware of his approach
4. "While acknowledging a number of players and friends, he does not provide a bibliography or cite others who have
developed similar techniques."
Huh? On the contrary, I believe in giving credit where credit is due. I specifically cited Callet for the pedals, Gordon for
the holding out notes, Maggio for breathing exercises, and so on. So, I really don't understand what he means here.
Yes, there is no formal bibliography. I didn't target the book to "scholarly researchers," or put in a lot of BS to impress
somebody with my great knowledge. Instead, it's written to be down-to-earth readable, and practical to use.
Does a book on embouchure really need a bibliography?
5. "Smiley claims to have first discovered the roll-in technique in 1973 from a friend. The technique, and that of
extending the jaw forward, anchoring the mouthpiece on the bottom lip, and blowing upward, however, can be found in
the work of William N. Costello in the 1930's."
This is far off base. The reviewer latched onto a small point in the troubleshooting section - you know, where the
bag-of-tricks techniques are located for players who are really struggling to figure it out - and made it sound like the
core of my approach!!!!
Why would he do this?
The truth is, I was expecting it. As part of his bias, I learned beforehand that the reviewer is apparently quite an
expert on Costello/Stevens. Sure enough, he felt compelled to bring Costello into my book review, even though the
connection is tenuous at best. There were better correlations to be made. For example, had he instead brought some
Ghitalla philosophy into the mix, as an example of similarity, I would have said, "Hey, this guy knows his stuff." But now
I feel that he was using the opportunity to further his agenda as a fan of Costello.
I apologize if that sounds harsh. But I think that it is true.
To his credit, the reviewer also made some points that were right on, and he included several useful details that will
most likely encourage players to visit this website.
They say in marketing that all publicity is good publicity. Still, I feel the need to pay close attention, and point out the
uniqueness of my position, especially when scrutinized by a periodical as influential as the Journal. With a little more
effort on their part, the similarities and differences between BE and other approaches could have been more clearly
If we're not going for clarity, then what are we doing?
7. The First Article From the Old BE Site: The March 2003 ITG Review