[r-t] A Review of Diary Compositions

Chris Brown cjb at etpl.co.uk
Thu Nov 25 12:42:06 UTC 2004

Among other commenters, Ian Partridge said on 25 November 2004 11:57

>My personal bug-bears are the inclusion of all those triples methods
noone ever rings, and the comp for Smith's 23. How many people ever
turn up for a peal and think "oh damn, we need an emergency
composition. Smith's 23!".

>Including Beverley AND Surfleet is pointless, Carlisle should be
included instead of one (so that there is an example of every backwork
from the 41). Having Kent AND Oxford TB is similarly pointless. The
surprise minor compositions need reformatting.

>The Grandsire Triples quarters seem a bit crusty to me, and why oh why
is Scientific in there?? A quarter peal of half-lead 8-spliced??

>The whole thing needs redoing. A fresh start I say.

Hang on chaps, I (like I suspect most diary owners) am only a part-time
ringer. I occasionally get invited to bob-call a quarter of something
eg Plain Bob Triples, and sometimes we can find 5 other part timers to 
mug up on something like Beverley and/or Surfleet. Having them both is
pointless when you only ever get the chance to ring them once in a blue
Also there are many ringers that can find the difference between Kent
and Oxford 
really quite tricky.

And we DO ring some of the triples methods!

I can't help feeling that specialists who want to ring 23 spliced etc
have the 
knowledge and experience (and time) to look up their pet schemes
elsewhere, and I am pretty 
they will be in the minority of diary owners.

I am not saying the selection in the Diary is perfect, but please don't
the "ordinary ringer" (or even target audience!) when re-planning it. 

"That's all"

Chris Brown
St Nicholas Hurst, Berkshire.

More information about the ringing-theory mailing list