[r-t] Tritonian S. Max
alan.reading at googlemail.com
Mon Aug 22 13:46:18 UTC 2016
There is a bit of re-organisation of the front work you can do to get a few
more runs and reduce the number of 12's.
or you can have an Alliance version 3x3.4x2x1x2x5.4x4.7.6x8.9.0.E or
to get rid on the 90 pn. I think having an Alliance method where the treble
omits a dodge at the back is likely to be less trippy than somewhere in the
middle of the change.
People still ring single method peals in new methods on lower numbers - I
don't really see what is wrong with it on 12.
I think it's perhaps the case on 12 though (more so than on lower numbers)
that a band capable of ringing a good peal of a decent new method would be
just as capable of ringing some moderately interesting spliced.
On 22 August 2016 at 14:24, Philip Earis <pje24 at cantab.net> wrote:
> Jack: "Here is a new London over method with a regular half lead:
> Tritonian S. Maximus &3x3.4x2x3.4x2.5.2x2.7.4x6.9.8x0.E, le 2 [d]"
> Thanks for sharing.
> I like the way there's a run off the front (either little bell or
> involving the tenors) in every lead of the course. This is quite an
> unusual property in treble-dodging maximus methods (and Bristol doesn't
> have this feature, for example).
> On the flip side, though, the formulaic London overwork coupled with the
> d-group leadend order means runs at the back are rather sparsely
> distributed. 4 of the 11 leads of the plain course don't have any runs
> over the treble, with a further 2 leads just containing a pair of 4-bell
> runs (in Bristol all leads have runs at the back, as indeed will any
> f-group London over treble-dodging max method - one of the rare positive
> features of Newgate etc).
> It is also a nice feature that, as you say, "To get the regular half lead
> I made coursing pairs work together in 1-2, 3-4, 5-6, 7-8, and 9-0 under
> the treble", though this is a slight approximation given bells 2 & 5 find
> themselves together on the front, just 4 changes into the method :-)
> On a small point, have you investigated modifying Tritonian to replace the
> 2x2 section with x to produce a slightly concentrated alliance method? This
> might allow more compositional possibilities.
> More generally, though, does anyone still ring towerbell peals of new
> single surprise maximus methods? Isn't this a bit like trying to construct
> a new house out of only one, identical building block?
> A quick analysis by decade of the date single surprise max methods were
> first pealed on towerbells shows:
> Decade # new S Max Methods rung in single-method peals:
> 1900s 1
> 1910s 0
> 1920s 3
> 1930s 3
> 1940s 9
> 1950s 16
> 1960s 15
> 1970s 49
> 1980s 67
> 1990s 115
> 2000s 65
> 2010s 10
> It does look like we're well over "peak single method" peals, at least on
> higher numbers. Contrary to what some may think, this is no bad reflection
> on the health of ringing.
> ringing-theory mailing list
> ringing-theory at bellringers.net
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the ringing-theory