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

Mark Davies mark at snowtiger.net
Sun May 23 20:01:26 UTC 2010

Don writes,

> No failure at all. Last night I worked out and added the one parts,
> and figured out that the three part was good for Diamond, too, in
> response to your message.

Ah! You bastard - it took me a week to come up with just one! ;-O

> I don't think it's all that bad on the little bell count, especially
> for such part ends. By my reckoning it's only got six fewer than
> yours, if you count them both at the back and at the front:

Good point. I think in fact I was ignoring the 1234/4321, at least at 
some points in the discussion. Your three-part generates a lot of these 
I think by virtue of having so many 5678 combinations. However, that 
makes it more of a back-bell composition in my book; it doesn't have so 
many 2345 or 3456. Still very impressive, mind - in fact an awesome set 
of music for a multi-part in a false method.

I still prefer the 5024, though. It's more in the spirit of what I was 
after - squeezing the most music you can out of the tenors-together 
courses, with the minimum amount of split tenors.


More information about the ringing-theory mailing list