[r-t] Some good observations from Marky D

[Chris Poole]

I think you're right, Mark, on a few things you've said recently.

Firstly, the compositions in the diary are pretty dated and should
probably be updated.  Dated doesn't necessarily mean bad, of course, but
surely some compositions representative of this century should go in -
honestly, how many compositions of Bristol Max does Hull have to produce
before getting one in?! ;-)

Also, Marky asks why should one limit oneself to two types of call?  A
good question.  Why not 5?  Seems pretty arbitrary to me.  Presumably,
after the first singles started being used, a third type of call was
thought to be a bit revolutionary and so only two were used.  One could
perhaps argue, from a pn and parity argument, that using 18 calls (e.g.
before) and 14 calls (say in S12) should be more standard than 14 and 1234
calls (not that I am advocating this!).  But, saying this, why on Earth
would one want to use 123456 calls (they're your big singles aren't they
Mark?!)  Surely that's like one of the most inelegant hammers cracking a
very small nut (you wouldn't catch the Cambridge handbell band using these
calls...!)

Chris


On Sun, 21 Nov 2004, Mark Davies wrote:

> > Not the way I see it (setting myself up for some wisecrack)
>
> Interesting one Richard... why is a half-lead bob the same as a lead-end
> bob, in your book? Definitely a different place notation... doesn't
> necessarily have the same effect on the coursing order... In fact you could
> argue that a bob and a big bob are more closely related in some methods.
>
> > I don't know how one could have a decent composition of Yorkshire 12.
>
> !!!!
>
> I was looking through the compositions in the new Diary today. Blimey. What
> a load of old past-its-sell-by-date bollocks. There's virtually nothing in
> there that I'd want to call these days - surely it's time the Ringing World
> updated them. There's only one composition by Don Morrison, and nothing from
> David Hull - in fact virtually no little-bell arrangements at all. It's like
> a 1960s backwater.
>
> OK, I appreciate one of the virtues necessary for a Diary composition is
> simplicity & brevity, so a Hull split-tenors cyclic Caters/Royal epic
> wouldn't be appropriate, but why is a Fluke arrangement not in there? Some
> of the compositions are needlessly over-complex as well as producing no
> music. Simplest possible musical quarter peal compositions for Stedman
> Caters and Cinques - Davies and House have the solution, the Diary doesn't.
> As for the stuff for Surprise Max, I was struggling to contain my horror.
>
> Who puts this stuff together, and do they review it each year?
>
> M
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> ringing-theory mailing list
> ringing-theory at bellringers.net
> http://bellringers.net/mailman/listinfo/ringing-theory_bellringers.net
>

-----------------------------------------------------------
Chris Poole             | Work phone:        01865 (2)70508
Corpus Christi College  | Mobile:              07980 612375
OXFORD. OX1 4JF         | http://www.maths.ox.ac.uk/~poole/
-----------------------------------------------------------