[r-t] Tenors together spliced maximus

[Ian Fielding]

Jack,

Interested by your comment

“I think the reason is mostly because they don’t produce long runs, they don’t produce runs in all the normal lb c/os, and they don’t have any redeeming qualities which make up for it”.

I thought Barford/Newgate  produced runs in all normal LB courses – additionally they produce a number of 56’s/65’s in a number of the LB courses e.g. 43652, 45236, 35426, 34562, 46325. The redeeming qualities thing is subjective and personally if I am ringing spliced I like the methods to be different – Barford (in particular) is a perfectly decent method in spliced.

Ian Fielding

Chief Pharmacy Technician
North Bristol NHS Trust
0117 414 2277 (Telephone)
07872 995464 (Mobile)

From: ringing-theory [mailto:ringing-theory-bounces at bellringers.net] On Behalf Of Jack Gunning
Sent: 01 June 2016 21:51
To: ringing-theory at bellringers.net
Subject: Re: [r-t] Tenors together spliced maximus

Thanks Don, Philip and MBD for your replies.

I’ve muddled together two ideas I had.  I’ve tried to clarify below, some of it is more development than clarification.

Don

I don’t really have a well thought out reason for rejecting Barford, Painswick, Rochester, Newgate and Pudsey.  I think the reason is mostly because they don’t produce long runs, they don’t produce runs in all the normal lb c/os, and they don’t have any redeeming qualities which make up for it.

I also think a fun-to-ring composition of spliced in about 5 methods would include a maximum of one right place method and that there are better choices than Pudsey.

Philip

Re. first one

What I was trying to get at is that most compositions of spliced including, say, Phobos, include a number of leads which are boring, just to get atw.  Of course, this problem can be fixed by ringing the right leads in a cyclic composition, as originally intended.  Why don’t people do this all the time?  Difficulty, primarily.  Both in striking and in method ringing.

I agree that London Cambridge London over-and-over again is formulaic and dull.  But, supposing that there was some way:
- in a composition of tenors together maximus for the back bells to ring something similar to the last part of cyclic 6 (or both of the best leads of some other methods),
- provided the part was long enough (certainly longer than 3 leads) and produced good music (it could also be varied - e.g. Orion style music and Phobos style music),
- even if the back bells ring the same leads of the same methods over and over again,
- it might be possible to get something interesting (certainly as interesting as a single method peal for the back bells) which produces plentiful amounts of varied music.

The structured approach you speak of hasn’t been fully exploited in tenors together compositions (to my knowledge).  Perhaps because it’s not possible, perhaps because it means ditching atw, I don’t know.

Re. second one

I guess my thought was, if you’re going to ring tenors together atw, then the methods would have to be good in the plain course (meet previously set out criteria) for the composition to be good throughout.  I don’t know this is right, but I think it is.

MBD

"0 LWM” - nice.

I like your composition, I need to study it in more detail.

"It is likely the 2 LWM could be reduced with more careful choice of seed composition, however one more obvious approach is to include back-bell 6-runs such as 7890ET into the count; this will then permit the Phobos lead with the back bells on the front.”
Would it be possible to just allow the lead of Phobos with the back bells on the front?  I.e. not for the other methods.  It really is a good lead.  I think there would still be interesting stuff on the back for the little bells in the right c/os, even if interrupted by the treble - is that right?

Thanks again everyone,

Jack




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.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://bellringers.net/pipermail/ringing-theory/attachments/20160602/32289bb6/attachment-0002.html>