[r-t] Compositions of the Decade: Part 1 - Preamble
rrhorton at btinternet.com
Thu Nov 19 08:10:04 UTC 2009
Some 2 years ago I started putting the Spliced Surprise (published by the
CCCBR in 1997) collection into a searchable format and have since brought it
up to date with compositions of Spliced Surprise published in the RW since
I have also added 100 composition and an article from Tony Kench re the
first 100 peals of cyclic maximus rung by the ASCY in London.
It is my intention to extend this collection hence it is no longer spliced
surprise, just spliced. It will eventually include Stedman and Bristol etc.
I'm happy to accept electronic submissions for additions to this searchable
database. Comments also welcome.
As Richard Smith notes, work and other things will inhibit the speed of
It can be viewed at www.rrhorton.net and follow the link.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Richard Smith" <richard at ex-parrot.com>
To: <ringing-theory at bellringers.net>
Sent: Thursday, November 19, 2009 12:58 AM
Subject: Re: [r-t] Compositions of the Decade: Part 1 - Preamble
> Philip Earis wrote:
>> a new decade will soon be starting.
> Well, in 13 months it will :-)
>> Given the vast, vast search spaces, though, computer power is usually
>> just a tool that needs a clever mind to produce a great result.
>> Intelligent design, one could say, is what differentiates composer from
> I whole-heartedly agree with this. Unfortunately, tools like BYROC have
> given computer-assisted composing a bad name. Any monkey can crank
> BYROC's handle and wait until it excretes a composition. (That isn't to
> say it can't produce decent compositions too, if used in a thoughtful
> manner.) As a result, it seems to me that composers are quite cagey about
> admitting to having used a computer, other than to prove it afterwards.
>> It is also of concern that many of the compositions I will include are
>> hard to find, and in quite a few cases do not appear on the web, even on
>> a fleeting medium like a personal website.
> I agree with this too, although on this point I'm as guilty as anyone.
> I'm sure some of this seeming secrecy is intentional -- if you've produced
> a composition that you feel is particularly special, it's nice to have a
> say in who rings it first. But I'm equally sure a lot of the time it's
> just down to bad organisation, or failure to appreciate that it's worthy
> of publication.
>> It is hoped that efforts at producing a stable, central online repository
>> for compositions will yield tangible results soon.
> I would love to see a single central compositions database, and this was
> something that GACJ and others were discussing back in the spring. It
> seems to have fizzled out, not, I suspect, due to lack of enthusiasm, but
> more due to everyone involved having lots of other commitments on their
> time, and a number of difficult issues that need resolving (and,
> importantly, resolving in the right way). I'll see if I can find time to
> return to it this winter.
>> Coming tomorrow - Part 2: Doubles
> I shall particularly look forward to this part. I have tended to neglect
> doubles thinking that everything interesting has already been discovered.
> But given that we don't even know to within a few orders of magnitude how
> many extents there are, that's something of a sweeping statement. And, of
> course, you can do further things using multi-extent blocks.
> ringing-theory mailing list
> ringing-theory at bellringers.net
More information about the ringing-theory