[r-t] The 5056

[Mark Davies]

Philip writes,

> I guess that from an elegance point of view I think there's a case to be
> made for having whole unadulterated courses of decent coursing orders

This is indeed true - strictly speaking five Befores are a better way of
getting the music than five (MW)s. My 5026 no.2 and no.3 on
http://compositions.org.uk are good examples of using Before on both the
53246 and 64235 sets. However I do still like the MWs in this case... the
completion of the proto-palindrome by ringing the last set backward... and
the inclusion of the whole plain course (6 leads) in the middle of the 
composition... mmm...

Don asks,

> What's the "(23)" mean in the above?

Sorry, forgot to cut this out. There is a 5120 version of the composition
with an extra MBW added to one of the MW courses to get an addition three
6578 rollups. Again, it's on Michael's site if you want to look.

> Also, I think you can claim a few more little bell rollups than you do: if
> by LB4 you mean any runs of 4 consecutive bells at the back or front other
> than 5678/8765

You're right, but I didn't count the 4567/7654s. To me a LB rollup has to
have the three in it, at least on eight! I don't suppose it makes a lot of
difference.

> one quick run through of how it fits together and it's implanted in the
> memory pretty well!

Thanks Don, yes I like that about it too. Despite being a one-part, the
simplicity of its construction and the natural way bits run together make it
as easy to memorise as a multi-part. What a beautiful universe to contain 
such things, eh?

MBD