[r-t] What was I trying to achieve?

David Hull david at turningcourse.com
Fri Mar 7 13:19:38 UTC 2008

Philip wrote:
>I see David Hull has been naming new methods again, this time Orsett
>Delight Major: <http://www.campanophile.co.uk/show.aspx?Code=62913>
>The notation is d &3456-36.4-5-1-4-5-4-5
> What was he trying to achieve, I wonder?

Philip Earis is right to question my motives behind this method. His
handbell companion, David Pipe, has already suggested that "Scraping The
Barrel Delight Major" might have been a more appropriate name.

Ugly is certainly an apt description for the place notation (and, therefore,
the visual grid) above the treble but, in blue-line terms, the method looks
OK. It isn't the first time this above work has been used either and it can
be combined with plenty of good below works - expect to see it again
sometime soon! BEc falseness is certainly a drawback, but Philip's
suggestion of compounding the ugliness by adding places in 78 is surely a
retrograde step. Despite the falseness, 18 5678s and 8765s are still
possible in a peal and it is that which I consider to be a minimum for major
methods, both back and front (although I haven't been quite so rigid about
this requirement in the past - see Coniston Bluebird for instance).

Within a relatively small search space delineated by some quite tight
confines (as defined by me), the number of decent* unrung methods is
relatively small, although I still have a substantial list. With a monthly
(and sometimes more frequently) peal band most often attempting a new method
on each occasion, variety is important in order to retain interest. I wasn't
surprised to be criticised for this particular production, but the
"ugliness" on paper didn't retract from an excellent and musical peal being
rung - indeed it is probably true to say that the majority of the small
number of trips that occurred were due to uncertainty on the front rather
than at the back.

Another similarly "ugly" above work worthy of further consideration is:


Indeed, I think one of the London-based bands rang something with this above
work reasonably recently.

* Decent methods - defined in my book as:
- an interesting (i.e. not too static) blue line, but without (m)any
trip-inducing gotchas;
- falseness that doesn't preclude a composition with at least 18 5678s and
8765s off the front and at the back (and preferably more);
- (desirable but non-essential) musical rows distributed throughout the
course (i.e. not clustered in single leads);
- (desirable but non-essential) the avoidance of places in 78 except when
the treble lies behind (Philip will undoubtedly argue that there's nothing
wrong with this. There isn't but a) some people don't like it and b) it is
unfamiliar and is the cause of lots of trips!).

There are others far cleverer than me (young Reading for example) who can
extract musical peals from methods with more difficult falseness groups than
I tend to deal with. I freely admit to operating in my own comfort zone!


More information about the ringing-theory mailing list