[r-t] 41 Surprise Minor

[Alexander Holroyd]

Thank you John and Richard for the replies!

I do find the objection to "obvious falseness" in multi-extent blocks a 
little esoteric.  One person's obvious is another's mysterious.  And more 
to the point, to me the definition of truth in a multi-extent block is 
simply that each row appears the same number of times.  Personally I don't 
see value in somehow trying to conceal that this is what one is doing by 
imposing additional restrictions.

On the other hand, I have no intention of questioning the tastes of the 
composer.  It's a marvellous composition as written!

cheers, Ander

On Fri, 14 Oct 2011, John Warboys wrote:

> Absolutely nothing wrong with what you suggest Ander, but I have a
> self-written rule to avoid "obvious" falseness (namely repeated lead-ends or
> lead-heads) between calls in any block.
>
>
>
> However I don't necessarily impose that restriction between different
> blocks, there are for example in composition SU0308 repeated lead-end and
> lead-head rows between the last bob in the Carlisle-over blocks and the
> first bob in the London-over block, but because we've completed one logical
> block of the composition and moved on to another it's less obvious and thus
> acceptable to my mind.
>
>
>
> John
>
> _______________________________________________
> ringing-theory mailing list
> ringing-theory at bellringers.net
> http://bellringers.net/mailman/listinfo/ringing-theory_bellringers.net
>