[r-t] Alan Reading cyclic major composition

[Alan Reading]

 Thanks Philip. In my opinion another advantage of this composition over the
6-spliced is increased elegance and quality of the methods used. I would say
that all the methods (apart from perhaps Wild Hare) are well worth ringing
in there own right and potentially capable of being rung to musical
compositions.
Most of the spliced band rang a peal of Bouchavesnes on Friday night - only
the 2nd peal in the method, first rung in 1988. I wonder how many peals of
Pudsey there have been in that time?!


> Can this be shortened to a perfect 7-part, without some parts being longer
> than others?  How about removing the straight-jacket of just sticking to
> surprise methods?  It would be good to see further steps taken down this
> path.
>

Very easily as it happens. If you replace Bouchavesnes with Double Norwich
Court Bob, and Micklegate Bar (2nd place Bouchavesnes) with Hereward Bob
(2nds place DNCBM) then the same runs are provided, truth is maintained, and
an exact 7-part 5152 is obtained by calling the full version of the
composition in every part.

The composition actually started out life sort of in this guise (with a few
other differences) but I continued to work on it for various reasons:
I admire the method Bouchavesnes and wanted to include it.
I think the Bristol style front work of Bouchavesnes/Micklegate Bar brings
up the runs in a slightly more subtle way than DNCBM (notwithstanding DNCBM
is a fantastic method).
In some ways I consider the irregular 7-part to be advantageous. The way the
composition is constructed means you only ever get runs in natural runs
courses but of course the full version has blocks of 3-bobs none run sets of
bells eg 2876's, 3287's etc and so there are no runs in these 10 lead
sections. By making the composition slightly longer and missing some of
these sections out you effectively distribute the runs more evenly through
the peal.

That said I recognise the elegance of having a perfect 7-part and maybe some
folks like 3287's?! Also prior to Philip's post I hadn't realised that the
exact alteration I suggest above was possible. I think it may also be worth
ringing at some point.

Cheers,
Alan
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://bellringers.net/pipermail/ringing-theory/attachments/20100302/fd4a71b9/attachment-0004.html>