[r-t] Grove's Variation

[edward martin]

Hello again
actually it has nothing to do with where you call singles.
Apparently when J.J.Parker first discovered his 12 part it was with
7th as observation but he published it with 6th obs because it yielded
more music at backstroke.
Groves's variation is nothing more than call J.J.Parker's with the 7th as obs.
(you can call it with 2 as obs but it seems to me that in both these
cases, rather than the word 'variation' we ought to use
'transposition' To my way of thinking, a variation would need to
involve a fairly significant alteration to the original calling of a
composition.)
Much more straightforward to claim 'J.J.Parker's 12 part , 6th/7th/2nd
obs', and forget about Mr Groves's involvement

mew

On 13/04/2008, edward martin <edward.w.martin at gmail.com> wrote:
> hello
> i'm in an american hotel & don't have books with me but...off the top
> of my head is it nothing more than when calling 7th obs a different
> choice of where to call singles on2-3-4?  ie at the out at 3 instead
> of at the fnal home
>
> mew
>
> On 11/04/2008, Richard Pullin <grandsirerich at googlemail.com> wrote:
> > Hi all.
> > Can anyone give me the figures of Grove's Variation of Parker's 12 part?
> > The composition isn't on the online peal collection or in Grandsire
> > Compositions 2004.
> > I know it was quite popular in my region about 80 years ago and I also saw a
> > peal using this composition in today's Ringing World.
> > Thanks in advance.
> > RBP
> > _______________________________________________
> >  ringing-theory mailing list
> >  ringing-theory at bellringers.net
> > http://bellringers.net/mailman/listinfo/ringing-theory_bellringers.net
> >
> >
>