[r-t] [Fwd: 8 Spliced]

Alexander Holroyd holroyd at math.ubc.ca
Thu Mar 15 18:49:55 UTC 2012

I general I do actually like the idea of sticking with one method for a 
while (say about a course in Surprise 8) - one gets to settle into it and 
appreciate its individual qualities.  I think the tendency to 
automatically prefer as many changes of method as possible is a bit 

On Thu, 15 Mar 2012, Alexander Holroyd wrote:

> I can see both points of view here.
> On the one hand, a peal with a few very musical bits embedded in a sea of 
> dross is not good.  Music should be spread somewhat evenly.
> On the other hand, there's merit in making music more obvious by somewhat 
> in-your-face placement.  A common example is that two similar roll ups across 
> a dodge or a point generally sound good - one hears the first one, and then 
> the second one drives the point home.  I think Philip wants to celebrate the 
> beauty of this course by making it obvious to everyone that it is all one 
> course.
> I might be more convinced if one could structure the whole peal in a similar 
> way.  How about also including the most muscial course of Bristol and the 
> most musical course of Pudsey, etc, in their entirity.  (Of course, I really 
> mean the most musical combination courses that are true against each 
> other...).  Maybe not necessarily plain courses - perhaps there is a really 
> musical bob course of Cambridge, for instance...
> Of course an even better plan would be to do a similar thing with 
> appropriately chosen methods.
> A
> On Thu, 15 Mar 2012, Ian Fielding wrote:
>> Were on the same wavelength, I just don't understand why you want to get 
>> such a good course out the way in 1 x 7 minute burst when you could split 
>> the effect across two sections.
>> Ian Fielding
>> Chief Pharmacy Technician
>> North Bristol NHS Trust
>> 0117 323 8846 (Southmead Hospital)
>> 0117 340 3334 (Frenchay Hospital)
>> 07872 995464 (Mobile)
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: ringing-theory-bounces at bellringers.net 
>> [mailto:ringing-theory-bounces at bellringers.net] On Behalf Of Philip Earis
>> Sent: 15 March 2012 16:40
>> To: ringing-theory at bellringers.net
>> Subject: Re: [r-t] [Fwd: 8 Spliced]
>> Glint:
>> "Whilst the 4536278 course of Superlative is very good, I can't help 
>> feeling that having 7 consecutive leads of it in a peal is a bit like 
>> eating an entire packet of Jaffa cakes (or any other confectionary treat) 
>> in one go. A personal preference perhaps, but it would be nice to see it 
>> split up into at least 2 bits across a couple of parts so that indigestion 
>> doesn't occur"
>> Oh dear, I fear we're on different wavelengths (again). The reason the 
>> 65432 course of Superlative is so good is not just that you get runs before 
>> and after every halflead and every leadend, but also that you get all the 
>> different types of runs in the same course (8765s, 7654s, 6543s, 5432s 
>> etc).  It's not like eg find 5 consecutive bobbed / singled leads of 
>> Bristol Major where you can feel a bit sickly.  Quite the opposite with 
>> Superlative mega-tittums - you need the whole course in one go to be 
>> dazzled and fully appreciate the effect.
>> But enough of personal preferences - I'm keen on more compositions 
>> coming... (and thanks for all the suggestions so far)
>> This communication (including any attachments) is intended for the use of 
>> the addressee only and may contain confidential, privileged or copyright 
>> material. It may not be relied upon or disclosed to any other person 
>> without the consent of the RSC. If you have received it in error, please 
>> contact us immediately. Any advice given by the RSC has been carefully 
>> formulated but is necessarily based on the information available, and the 
>> RSC cannot be held responsible for accuracy or completeness. In this 
>> respect, the RSC owes no duty of care and shall not be liable for any 
>> resulting damage or loss. The RSC acknowledges that a disclaimer cannot 
>> restrict liability at law for personal injury or death arising through a 
>> finding of negligence. The RSC does not warrant that its emails or 
>> attachments are Virus-free: Please rely on your own screening. The Royal 
>> Society of Chemistry is a charity, registered in England and Wales, number 
>> 207890 - Registered office: Thomas Graham House, Scien!
> ce
>> Park, Milton Road, Cambridge CB4 0WF
>> _______________________________________________
>> ringing-theory mailing list
>> ringing-theory at bellringers.net
>> http://bellringers.net/mailman/listinfo/ringing-theory_bellringers.net
>> DISCLAIMER: The information in this message is confidential and may be 
>> legally privileged. It is intended solely for the addressee.  Access to 
>> this message by anyone else is unauthorised.  If you are not the intended 
>> recipient, any disclosure, copying, or distribution of the message, or any 
>> action or omission taken by you in reliance on it, is prohibited and may be 
>> unlawful.  Please immediately contact the sender if you have received this 
>> message in error. Thank you.
>> _______________________________________________
>> ringing-theory mailing list
>> ringing-theory at bellringers.net
>> http://bellringers.net/mailman/listinfo/ringing-theory_bellringers.net
> _______________________________________________
> ringing-theory mailing list
> ringing-theory at bellringers.net
> http://bellringers.net/mailman/listinfo/ringing-theory_bellringers.net

More information about the ringing-theory mailing list