[r-t] Avalon Delight Maximus

[Alan Reading]

>
>  I may be missing something, but I'm not sure why Avalon was selected over
> some of the more musical choices


I don't know but probably because it has a pleasingly simple construction
and produces a line that is fairly ringable and Avon/Bristol-esque.
The peal was rung competently at the first attempt without any faffing
around with losses or practices which I think demonstrates it's success in
that regard.

Alan


On 15 February 2013 10:38, Philip Earis <Earisp at rsc.org> wrote:

> It's good to see a new cyclic maximus method, Avalon Delight, has been
> rung by the Bristol band (http://bb.ringingworld.co.uk/view.php?id=275725)
>
> Avalon Delight
>  -5T-14.5T-5T.30.14-70.1T.36-9T.30.18-18.9T-18-1T-18-9T.18-38.1470.9T.16.9T.58.14.7T.14.369T.50-5T.14-5T-1T
> = 134567890ET2
>
> Avalon uses rotational symmetry to get to the cyclic leadhead, a concept
> first used by MBD's Brave New World royal, and perfected (smiley thing) by
> Anglia Cyclic Bob Major [-1-2367-1-7-5-36-4-2 = 18234567]
>
> Such rotational symmetry can be thought of as ringing two independent
> half-leads of different double methods.  With Avalon, the first half-lead
> is Avon Delight, bringing in lots of runs. The second half-lead is rather
> disappointing though, with fairly limited music (see the big contrast in
> run-rows in the two half-leads highlighted at: <
> http://ringing.org/main/pages/method?notation=-5-4.5-5.30.4-70.1.36-9.30.8-8.9-8-1-8-9.8-38.470.9.6.9.58.4.7.4.369.50-5.4-5-1&pn-query=Display&stage=12&le=>
> )
>
> A quick way of comparing the musical punch a cyclic method packs is by
> comparing the <4-runs> in the plain course (ie the count of incidences of 4
> or more consecutive bells, not including wrap-arounds like ET23). Avalon
> scores 343 on this measure.
>
> Clearly there are a huge number of alternative possibilities for the
> second half-lead, almost infinite diversity in infinite combinations. I may
> be missing something, but I'm not sure why Avalon was selected over some of
> the more musical choices, such as:
>
> -5-4.5-5.30.4-70.1.36-9.30.8-8.9-8-1.30.8.30.69.38.4.36.470.36.4.36.58.70.9.70.369.70.9.50.47.30.5.30.1
> 1T234567890E    (505 <4-runs>)
> -5-4.5-5.30.4-70.1.36-9.30.8-8.9-8-1.30.8.30.9-6.38.70-4.9.58.4.9-36.50.7-4.30.5.30.1
>                           1T234567890E    (488 <4-runs>)
> -5-4.5-5.30.4-70.1.36-9.30.8-8.9-8-1-4.50.369.4.58.4.70-4.36.1.70.9-36.9.58.9.470.38.9-1
>                        14567890ET23    (442 <4-runs>)
> -5-4.5-5.30.4-70.1.36-9.30.8-8.9-8-1.30.4-3.4-8.30.4-4.58.9-9.30.5-9.0-9.30.1
>                                   134567890ET2    (454 <4-runs>)
>
> The first of these packs in impressive runs (including some reverse runs).
> The third has good fluidity. Another alternative that is perhaps more
> similar to Avalon (but with more music) is:
>
> -5-4.5-5.30.4-70.1.36-9.30.8-8.9-8-1-8-9.38-8.7-9.6.30.7.4-6.5-50.4-5-1
>                                       134567890ET2    (375 <4-runs>)
>
> In any case, I'm glad people are still playing around in the cyclic field.
>  There's huge fun to be had here, especially with fluid plain methods. The
> "offset cyclic" methods (with palindromic symmetry but rung starting at the
> snap), as trialled in Oxford occasionally in recent years, are also worth a
> look.
>
>
>
>
> DISCLAIMER:
>
> 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, Science Park, Milton Road,
> Cambridge CB4 0WF
>
> _______________________________________________
> ringing-theory mailing list
> ringing-theory at bellringers.net
> http://bellringers.net/mailman/listinfo/ringing-theory_bellringers.net
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://bellringers.net/pipermail/ringing-theory_bellringers.net/attachments/20130215/b970d3a9/attachment.html>