[r-t] Different ways of using 7 parts

Thomas Perrins thomas_perrins at hotmail.com
Wed Dec 4 14:04:41 UTC 2013

```One disadvantage to 7 part atw compositions is that the tenors spend many leads apart. However, I was thinking the other day that it should be possible to create 7 parts where the tenors spend a much greater time together. Theoretically this is simply done by having only befores (or sB/s3, if singles are necessary) called in each part. If this is done, the tenors only spend 2 parts wildly apart. Extending this concept, one could then omit these split parts to easily obtain compositions of pseudo-tenors-together compositions of spliced, most of which are atw. Furthermore, due to the 7 part basis, the compositions can be much more repetitious (= easier to call) than many. I am very intrigued to have never come across a 7 part based on befores. One possible reason might be that it is difficult to find enough leads for a peal, given a set of methods (I've found that the Nottingham 8 gets very close in this regard!). Even when this is the case, it is often easy to join up the tenors-together blocks found in this manner with the millions of leads left over. Indeed, much of the padding section used in the example below was picked by hand from the outstandingly massive sea of residual true leads.    To demonstrate these points, I recently composed a pseudo-tenors-together peal of atw spliced following the basic procedure below. Effectively I ring 5 standard parts from a perfect 7 part, padding out the last part and rejecting the 2 junk parts.
"Nearly-tenors-together atw spliced for dummies":
1. Generate a 7 part composition based on befores.2. Kick-out the 2 split parts (trivially done if the first method in the 7 part is 8ths place - see composition).3. Go fishing in the sea of unused leads for padding up to length.
Note that the standard 8 does not lend itself particularly well to this concept; I am certain that a more ringing-theory-approved selection of methods would facilitate far less padding.
I would be keen to see if/how people have used the same, or a similar, concept in the past.
Regards,Tom Perrins.

5026 [5154] Spliced Surprise Major (8m)TMP
23456  B M W H Methods------------------------------- 42356        - B. 52346      s   CCNN,L 63254   sV/F   RLRLR,SSCN.P(23456)   -     YYP.------------------------------- 46352    -   s B.CCNN, 56342      s   LRLRLR,SSC(23456)   V/F   N.PYYP.------------------------------- 35264  -       BB.CC 64523   sB/s3  NN,[LRLRL]R,SS(23456) 2       CN.PYYP.------------------------------- 64325    V/sF  BB.CCNN,LRLRL 35426    s   - R,SSCN.(23456)     -   PYYP.  ------------------------------- 45236      - - B.CCN. 32654    - -   PNN.Y.R(52643)   s s   L,P, 36542  - - - s YSR.BSC.P.L, 35642        s B, 62543    s   - CNN,RC. 65243        s B,(45263)     s   BY,(65243)     s   PLCSY, 54632  -       YRC.YC 23465    - s - NCS.S,YPS. 63425      s   PL,L 34265      s 2 YR,PPS.B.(64235)     s   YSSY, 52436    -   - PLYN.LP. 64352   sV/sF  N,LRLRLR,S 32456    -   s SCN.PYYP, 25364  -       PP.SNS-------------------------------Replace [LRLRL] with S to avoid 87's at backstroke.
130 com, atw.
12 56's, 65's, 83 LB4.

```