gaataylor at blueyonder.co.uk
Fri Dec 24 11:09:25 UTC 2004
> As a ringer, I naively intend "spliced" to be the appropriate word any
> time I am stirring together methods in anything other than whole
> extents or MEBs of a single method.
Putting aside the composition for a moment and look at things from the point
of view of those actually ringing, then the reality for them is of methods
being changed every few leads or so. To all intents and purposes their
perception is that they are ringing spliced, as Don suggests.
If a peal length composition of multi-minor cannot be described as "spliced"
then this is the outcome of a bureaucratic decision which may in itself be
rational, but which fails to address the "obvious" reality (i.e. if it looks
like a duck and make a noise like a duck, then ...), whilst ascribing
greater importance to a technical distinction that is probably lost upon the
Although not directly comparable, I have always used the term "mixed minor"
in quarter peals to describe the situation where one of the constituent 720
or 540 (reassembled where appropriate) only contains a single method,
reserving the term "spliced" for when each of these contains at least two
methods. This said, it's an artificial distinction which makes no practical
difference to how it is rung or the band's perception of what they have
done. On the other hand, if I rang, say, a 720 of Cambridge and a 540 of
Plain and Little then I'm not sure I'd be happy with the overall description
of "spliced" unless the Cambridge was chopped up into smaller pieces.
Could this be the yardstick, I wonder? In other words, if any individual 720
is rung (and uninterrupted by any change of method) then the composition is
not spliced. If, however, a 720 in a single method is interrupted by
snippets from one or more other 720s then this does count as spliced.
More information about the ringing-theory