[r-t] Diamond Delight (was Are FCH's needed any more?)

Don Morrison dfm at ringing.org
Sun May 23 04:15:56 UTC 2010

On Sat, May 22, 2010 at 8:14 AM, Mark Davies <mark at snowtiger.net> wrote:
> Can anyone do better btw?

Of course, that's not a straightforward question, since quality is not
a single dimension spectrum. However, I suspect that some bands or
conductors might prefer one or another of the following for some
specific circumstances, while others or under different circumstances
might prefer yours.

The first is a three part originally intended for Higher Walton. It's
not difficult if you don't have a prejudice against simple,
tenors-parted sections. It has fewer 65s and 5678s off the front, but
more runs of four or more consecutive bells at the back or front, as
well as adding 8765 and 7568 courses to the mix. And besides the
reduced learning a three part requires, these part ends do a good
job of spreading the musical rows based on 5678 nicely throughout
the peal.


The next is a bobs only one part rue to all BDO. While again it loses the
65s, as any one universally true must if it uses the usual 34 singles,
because of the D falseness, and also loses the 5678s off the front,
it does again add other interesting courses, and avoids the
dreaded 3 Homes finish.


The last I think does retain most of the best courses of yours, but
adds more good tenors parted courses.


Don Morrison <dfm at ringing.org>
"The first lesson of philosophy is that we may all be mistaken."
                           -- Will Durant, _Our Oriental Heritage_

More information about the ringing-theory mailing list