[r-t] 41 Surprise Minor
holroyd at math.ubc.ca
Thu Oct 20 21:25:29 UTC 2011
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!
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.
> ringing-theory mailing list
> ringing-theory at bellringers.net
More information about the ringing-theory