[r-t] Re: New method review - part I

[Philip Earis]

Percy:
"To me it looks like a method built somewhat randomly around a
pivot-bell"

I'm not sure if eight bells is enough for the 'Phobos-esque' overwork,
but in any case there are much better methods on the plan, including
some that are unrung 

&-3-4-2.5.6.34-4.5-4-7,8 16482735 ABDac  (Unrung)
&-3-4-2.5.6.34-4.5-4-7,2 14263857 ABDac  Cheshunt Surprise Major
&-3-4-2.5.6.34-4.5-4-1,8 18674523 ABDac  (Unrung)
&-3-4-2.5.6.34-4.5-4-1,2 16482735 ABDac  Honiton Surprise Major

These all have 50 <4-runs> in the plain course. For something slightly
less elegant, but with 58 <4-runs> in the plain course there is
&-3-4-2.5.6-2-5.34.2-1,2 16482735 ABD (Untitled Surprise Major)

"but as you said they probably wanted to ring a new method, probably for
the name. Are you against this practice in general?"

I'm most definitely against it if the new method doesn't have any
intrinsic merit.  Why ring something that is a considerably worse
variation of something already rung just to give it a new name?
Similarly ringing a succession of mediocre methods just to get an
'alphabet' or something - I really don't see the point. Out of the ~5000
rung surprise major methods, how many can be said to have merit?  About
200-300, I reckon. Even if you take a collection of relatively extremely
commonly (too many adverbs) rung methods like Norman Smith's 23, only a
handful (if I was being charitable) have some sort of merit (Bristol,
Cornwall, Double Dublin), with a lesser case for Preston, Superlative,
Uxbridge, Yorkshire, Cray, and an even slimmer case for Glasgow and
London.

"If not, would you care to suggest some guidelines to follow when
producing a new TD method?"

Three main factors: music, falseness, elegance.







DISCLAIMER:

This communication (including any attachments) is intended for the use of the addressee only and may contain confidential, privileged or copyright material. It may not be relied upon or disclosed to any other person without the consent of the RSC. If you have received it in error, please contact us immediately. Any advice given by the RSC has been carefully formulated but is necessarily based on the information available, and the RSC cannot be held responsible for accuracy or completeness. In this respect, the RSC owes no duty of care and shall not be liable for any resulting damage or loss. The RSC acknowledges that a disclaimer cannot restrict liability at law for personal injury or death arising through a finding of negligence. The RSC does not warrant that its emails or attachments are Virus-free: Please rely on your own screening.