At American Rev War events, the most common marching cadence is The Long March as seen in Ashworth (1812).
This tradition might have started after the beating was included in the original BAR book around the bicentennial or it may originate from even earlier as a popular street beat in 1930s and 1940s corps.
Regardless of its origin, reenactors often play this cadence today at roughly 80 bpm to maneuver the troops at the common time.
Historically, common time was 75bpm for the American army and 60bpm for the British army, though arguably something closer to 75 may have already been in vogue.
As a beating taken from an 1812 source, is The Long March even appropriate for an American Rev War interpretation?
Moreover, should The Long March even be performed at the common time? Or should it exclusively be used at the quickstep?
In this article, I’d like to explore both of these questions, as well as if and how The Long March should be incorporated into your Rev War impression.
Is The Long March an 18th century beating?
There are only two written drum beatings that call themselves the Long March.
The first appears in Ashworth (1812) and is the most commonly played still today.
The second appears in Rumrille (1817). Line A is nearly identical to Ashworth’s; Line B is a typical 15-stroke roll variation.
An identical beating or a different beating with the same name does not appear in any of the known 18th century drum manuscripts or manuals. However, we do find two 18th century references to the beating itself.
Von Steuben states that “Front to Advance Quicker” is signaled by The Long March.
Simes also referred to the Long March:
“If [the officer] receives certain intelligence of a party of the enemy being superior to him, and that he is marching in order to intercept him, I would have the officer send the most active drummer or fifer to beat or play the long march a different road that he intends to take, with orders to conceal himself from the enemy, by which means the enemy may be induced to follow their sound, and give time to form an ambuscade, or to pursue their march quietly.”
(Simes, Military Course, 1777, 198)
These two references suggest that either
- Ashworth’s Long March existed in the 18th century and was a common cadence or
- The phrase “The Long March” originally referred less to a specific beating than to a type of beating.
The Long March Style
If you take every drum beating found in the three 18th century drum manuscripts – Ben Clark, Isaac Day, “The Drummer’s Book of Music” – as well as all beatings from the early 19th century – Ashworth, Robbins, Rumrille, Lovering, Hazeltine, Robinson – then you will find that beatings of this era tend to fall into one of a handful of categories.
One of those categories I like to call “Long March” style beating.
These beatings structurally resemble the Long March as seen in Ashworth. Structurally, they are eight measures with four phrases; each phrase follows certain rules.
Phrase 1: these beatings begin with the same two measures:
- seven right right right flam left left left (or two side flamadiddles).
Phrase 2: this is the most variable phrase. Generally, it uses on one of a handful of predictable phrases.
- Most often these phrases are flamadiddles, double stroke, Lesson 25, or flam tap based.
Note: the fourth type matched Ashworth’s Long March.
Phrase 3: usually the same as Phrase 1.
- In some more complicated Long March beatings, we see a handful of alternative phrases, such as Ashworth’s Long March’s repeat of its Phrase 2.
Phrase 4: it’s always a simple variant of the phrase “flam flam 77 flam flam”. Most common:
- “flam flam 7 7 flam flam”
- “flam flam 7 7 Lesson 25”
- “flam flam 7 7 double strokes”
Note: the second type matches Ashworth’s Long March.
If we think about The Long March as a style of beating, rather than as a specific beating, then we see that a large number of 18th and early-19th century drum beatings were all Long Marches.
This might explain Simes’ reference to the Long March as also being a fife tune; nearly any 2/4 tune could fit along with a basic Long March style beating.
Should you play the Long March at a Rev War event?
Even though we don’t have a written record of Ashworth’s Long March existing in the 18th century, we have enough evidence to show that the basic concept of the Long March was highly popular.
The variations seen in Ashworth’s Long March would be very much available and appropriate for the late 18th century.
In my opinion, Ashworth’s Long March makes a great marching cadence and general beating for any common time tune.
I would highly recommend though taking the time to learn some other long march-style beatings, taking care to notice the similarities and variations within them. This will really help to flesh out your repertoire without being a large burden on your memory.
Common Time versus Quick Time
Now that we’ve established that the Long March style beating was commonly played in the 18th century, we next need to decide whether it was played at the common time, at the quick time, or at both.
Evidence for the Quick Time
Quite a few details push us to the conclusion that the Long March may only have been played at the quick step, which was 120bpm for both the American and British armies of the late 18th century.
Von Steuben indicates that the Long March was used for “The Front to Advance Quicker”.
This could indicate that the column of march was slowing down and the drums performed the Long March to get the men back to a 75bpm pace.
On the other hand, it could easily indicate the order for the column of march to begin to double their pace to the quick step.
Perhaps more significantly, however, is how 1812-era manuals label the beating itself.
Ashworth’s Long March is labeled “The Long March, or quickstep”. Similarly, Rumrille places the Long March as the first in his category of quick steps, which he defines as being performed at 110bpm.
Thus, based on the historic name we should assume that The Long March was a quick step.
In Defense of the Common Time
There is some evidence – albeit a little circumspect for the moment – that The Long March could also be performed as in common time.
In Robbins and Robinson, we see Long March style beatings labeled as “common time”.
We should stop here to consider this terminology. In the 18th and early-19th century, the musical classification “common time” literally referred to anything in a duple meter – aka 2/4, 4/4, C, C cut, inverted C.
Therefore, when Robbins and Robinson call these Long March style beatings common time, they don’t necessarily mean beatings played at the common time (60 / 75bpm) but rather it is notated in common time, 2/4 or 4/4.
Should These Beatings be Played in Common Time?
To solve this question, we should think more carefully about how Robbins and Robinson define common time and how they are specifically labeling these different drum beatings.
Based on some residual elements of older music theory, Robbins and Robinson define four types of common time.
First Mode of Common Time
Robbins describes the “first mood” of Common Time, which he says “represents a slow movement, […] it contains four beats in a bar […], each beat containing one second of time” (Robbins 3).
This tells us that the First Mood is in Common Time, with the beat on the quarter note, performed at 60bpm (a second of time).
This is identical to Robbinson’s “1st Mode” of Common Time (22).
Second Mode of Common Time
The “second mood” is likewise in Common Time and performed with the beat on the quarter note. However, this mood is “a little quicker movement than the first” (Robbins 4).
Robbinson gives a more specific description for his “2nd Mode” in which there is “three seconds in a bar”, or 75bpm (22).
This suggests that there is a 1st mode that is “slow time” or 60bpms, whereas the 2nd mode is the “normal” common time or 75bpm.
Third Mode of Common Time
The “third mood” is instead in Cut Time, with the beat on the half note. Robbins notes that the beat “contain[s] one second of time”, or at 60bpm (4). This also true for Robinson’s “3rd Mode” (22).
This tells us that there are tunes depicted in Cut Time (C with a line through it) that should also be performed in “slow time” or 60bpm.
Fourth Mode of Common Time
Finally, the “fourth mood” is also in Cut Time, with the beat on the half note, except “beat one quarter part quicker than [third mood]”, or at 75bpm (Robbins 4). Robinson explains that this is in 2/4 and “contains one and a half seconds in a bar”, which also implies 75bpm (22).
So, like the 3rd mode, there is a form of Cut Time that is performed at the “normal” common time, 75bpm.
However, this 4th Mode or Method is also associated with the quickstep. Robbins states:
“I should prefer beating this twice as quick as the last [inverted C], generally” (3-6).
This indicates that 2/4 sometimes takes on a pace of 120bpm, or the quickstep.
So the 4th mode can be performed both at the common time and at the quick time.
Performance of Long March
The fact that Robinson describes his basic beatings a “1st Mode of Common Time”, “2nd Mode of Common Time”, etc., heavily implies that he means each of these beatings should be understood as a specific type of common time. Thus, their naming indicates that each beating should be played with a certain tempo.
Both Robinson’s 1st Mode and 2nd Mode are Long March style. This suggests that it’s appropriate to perform the Long March at 60bpm and 75bpm.
Robinson’s 3rd Mode is more like Ashworth’s Common Time march, which we would assume should be performed at 60bpm.
Robinson’s 4th Mode, also called a quick time, is more of a quickstep style beating, like we see in Rumrille and other manuals.
In Robbins’ manual, his drum beatings are called the “1st Method of Common Time”, etc. This naming is slightly different, but also implies these four beatings represent a specific type of common time, like in Robinson.
All four of Robbins’ Common Time are Long March style. This confirms what we see in Robinson – that the Long March style can be performed in 60bpm and 75bpm – but also suggests that the Long March style can be played in the 4th Method, which can be played as a quickstep.
Conclusion
Overall, I think there is sufficient evidence to say that the Long March and Long March style beatings can be played both at the common time and at the quick time.
Based on what we see in 1812-era manuals like Ashworth and Rumrille, however, I think there is decent evidence to suggest that the Long March was more often a quick step or was beginning to shift towards being played only as a quick step.
Regardless of all this academic questioning, The Long March is an absolutely essential beating to learn and master as it is so widely played.
Once again, I would encourage you to learn other Long March style beatings and observe how they are structurally the same so that you can quickly learn and memorize a large collection of historic beatings.
Do you have thoughts on whether the Long March is a Common Time or Quickstep? Please contact me and let me know!
