[r-t] New methods review - part III

[Philip Earis]

Here are the new treble-dodging major methods from this week's RW:


Regent's Park Surprise Major [-3-4-56-6-34-3-56-7, lh12 (d), fch BDa]
Rung 3/3/5, Kensal Green (Handbells), conducted Roger Bailey.

I'll start by saying I assume the half-lead change is 78 and not 58 as 
printed in the RW (as 58 would make the method irregular).  In any case, 
it's hard to see what this mediocre right-place Uxbridge-over clone brings 
to the party. The method avoids the pleasant effects of treble-dodging on 
the front and back fours around the half-lead inherent in Uxbridge and 
Lessness.  Instead, it 'isolates' a pair of bells every time the treble 
dodges on it's way from 3-4 to the half-lead.  The isolated pairs keep 
dodging, giving the underwork an overly static feel.  Unfortunately, the 
static pairs never coincide the right way for the traditional music - there 
are no 8765s off the front in the plain course, but 4 8756s instead. 
Another negative point is the falseness: BDa is a bit unnecessary with this 
overwork to say the least. To put the method into context, there are 34 
regular right-place Uxbridge-over surprise major methods (14 unnamed). 
Better methods on a similar plan are the rung trivial variant 
Burley-in-Wharfedale Surprise major (-3-4-56-6-34-3-34-7), and especially 
Sandringham Surprise major (-3-4-56-6-34-3-2-7), which gets the pairs the 
correct way round the soonest.  Both these methods also have the much nicer 
Ba falseness.  Regent's Park is not horribly gash, just a poor cousin of 
many existing methods.  As such, it comfortably fails the Earis test no. 2 
(the 'is it a worthwhile and significant improvement to existing methods' 
test).  One can only assume that Roger fell asleep at the wheel.


Ponteland Surprise Major [-3-4-56-36.4-34.5.6-34.7, lh12 (d) fch BKa]
Rung 15/2/5, Codsall, conducted Michael Maughan

A second Uxbirdge-over method this week, and an altogether better effort. 
The under-work is nice and fluid and although it superficially looks messy, 
to its credit it delivers an impressive amount of music.  However, K 
falseness creeps in here which is unfortunate, but that aside this is a 
pleasant method.  Again, though, this 'new' method is a trivial vrariation 
of Dunston Surprise major (-3-4-56-36.4-34.5.6-2.7), which was first rung 
last year, also conducted by Mike Maughan, and which is itself a trivial 
varient of Stepney Surprise major (-3-4-56-36.4-34.5.6-56.7), first rung in 
1986.  Of the three, I prefer Stepney which has the elegance of a section of 
Beverley minor on the front six followed by a section of Beverley minor on 
the back six (though sadly D falseness as well). Indeed, the Beverley link 
makes these methods feel to me like extensions of Izzat Surprise minor.



Lincolnshire Delight Major [-3-4-5-6-7-8-34-5, lh 12 (b), fch Bc]
Rung 1/3/5, Clifton, conducted Ian Butters

It's hard to know what to make of this method.  Above the treble the music 
is OK - you've got the underwork for Cambridge major flipped to be the 
overwork for this method.  Unlike the Cambridge underwork, the bells arrive 
in the right order here, leading to coursing bells coming together at the 
back.  The '78' in the notation consequently gives fashionable 87s at 
backstroke, which is no bad thing. The underwork does a job without being 
good.  I imagine that the method was named 'Lincolnshire' due to a few 
conincidental pieces of work with Lincolnshire surprise in the blue-line 
(especially the places in 3-4).  This is a bit of misnomer though - one of 
the very few good things about Lincolnshire Surprise is the complete lack of 
adjacent places in the notation, something which doesn't apply here.  In 
summary, Lincolnshire Delight is passable, but I've no desire to go out and 
ring it.



Rollestone Surprise Major [-3-4-2-6-34-23-2-5, lh 12 (f), fch BD]
Rung 4/3/5, Stratton St Margaret, conducted Tony Peake

I quite like the overwork, despite the BD falseness you're always going to 
get. The underwork here doesn't really do it justice, though.  I'm aware it 
has more than a passing similarity to Sandringham (praised above), but the 
'12' in the notation here makes it all feel a bit too static.  Additionally, 
the '1238' change in the notation seems distinctly unneccessary, and 
contributes to the stunted music off the front. Whilst again a passable 
method, it also fails test #2. Similar but better methods include Raunds 
(this was also mentioned in my email of 16 Feb) [-3-4-2-6-34-5-4-7,2=d,BDc], 
Dereham [-3-4-2-6-34-45-6-5,2=b,BD - good shit!], Xeranthemum 
[-3-4-2-6-34-45-2-7,2=d,BD] and Giotto [-3-4-2-6-34-45-56-7,2=d,BD].


Coming soon - the good, the good shit and the plain shit: three new 
treble-dodging royal methods of varying quality under the microscope.