[r-t] Ben Constant's Yorkshire Royal

[Mark Davies]

Alan Reading writes,

> I imagine Ben's was composed with the intention of including the little
> bell courses it does. In my opinion it is this which makes the composition
> really worthwhile. Keith's I suspect was composed with the intention of
> maximising Cru's in a simple 2 part structure, a job which it does pretty
> well.

That's exactly right, but nevertheless they are the same composition. Ben
has rotated it by one course (one Home) to give different music, but this is
an arrangement of the original composition, not a new composition.

> If you wish to ring the compostion mainly for the purpose of Cru's use
> Keith's rotation and attribute it to him, if you wish to ring the
> composition mainly for the purpose of little bell runs then use Ben's
> rotation and attribute it to him.

That is right, however what I am saying is that the composition is Keith's
(or possibly someone else's, if there's an even earlier attribution - anyone
know?). Ben's version is an arrangement, nothing more. In the G&B records I
would therefore use, for a peal using his version:

  5040 Yorkshire S Royal
  Arr. Ben Constant
  1. Xxx Yyyyy
  2. etc

And in our composition collection:

  5040 Yorkshire S Royal
  Arr. Ben Constant from Keith Scudamore
  Composition 5545 started from the 2nd course.

This makes it clear which version is being rung, but also ensure the 
attribution for the original composer is kept.

Anyway, I'm not really worried about that - what I want to know, did anyone 
else come up with the same thing before Keith?

P.S. Alan - did you get my email - you owe me quite a few compositions 
yourself!!

MBD