[r-t] Bristol Max tit-tums comps

[James Ramsbottom]

I think this is a nice idea. Essentially ringing a musical half-peal twice
with different back bell positions.

I've had a bit of a play around with calls to see what can be done. Moving
around the back bells between tittums and roll-ups is easy enough, and even
faster if half-lead calls are allowed. (Only need 1.5 leads in between.)
Getting between LB5 quick is more difficult. 6ths place calls at home
rotate bells 2-6 around like a before but in reverse, so a 23456 coursehead
can go to 64523 with 2 calls. (Again, half-lead calls can be beneficial
here.) A further 3 calls brings them home. Getting to the 24365 and 65432
courseheads are more difficult - unless a 123456 single is used of course!
sW, sH, sM, sW has the same effect, as does sM, sW, sH, sM, but both of
these are 10 leads long and give no music.

If the 7th is considered a little bell then obviously the possibilities for
LB5 increase. Could the little bells be put into tittums position as a
musical way of moving between LB5? With the back bells in tittums as well
this would give the mega-tittums course. The different lead end orders
offered by a spliced composition is one way to cut down on the non-musical
bits, but the band would need to be very strong to ring it! Does anybody
else thoughts on this?

I can't help feeling that LB4 are really musical ways to move between LB5...

James

On Tue, Jan 3, 2017 at 11:51 PM, Jack Gunning <jack.gunning at mac.com> wrote:

> I’ve been musing about a B12 comp.
>
> I think 4-bell lb runs are a bit ‘meh’ on 12.  I prefer 5+ lb runs but
> there are only so many of them.  I think it’d be cool if there was a comp
> that maximised lb stuff by using tit-tums back bell positions to ring lb
> 5/6 courses ‘twice’.  I like the idea of the back 6 bells coursing - this
> spreads the back bells across the row and gets ‘most’ of the mega-titums
> effect (my personal, very debatable, view).  I prefer the idea of lb runs
> and back bell tit-tums to mega tit-tums, because it adds variety to the
> sound and because I think the back bells are most noticeable in tit-tums
> and 6 back bells in tit-tums spreads throughout the whole row on 12.  Just
> my view.
>
> I’d rather a comp had multiple types of calls than transition trough duff
> back bell positions (duff back bell positions are particularly annoying).
>
> An outline plan would be:
> -some settling time, ringing lb5+ courses (something decent before the
> 4ths in my prototype below)
> -some back bell tit-tums, transitioning through lb5+ courses (some decent
> stuff between the 6ths and 8ths place calls in my prototype below)
> -some tenors together stuff to finish, ringing lb5+ courses (some suff
> after the 10ths below)
>
> I like the idea of ringing some of the best lb courses more than once,
> e.g. the below has 20+ leads of 53246 and 64235.  I admit that 1890et and
> 123456 pns are inelegant.
>
> Has anyone seen anything like this?  Is there any merit in this idea?
> Should the idea/premise be refined?  Can it be implemented nicely?
>
> Thanks for your time.
>
> Jack
>
>
>   1795E3T20486
>   1T0E89674523
>   1648203T5E79
>   13527496E8T0
>   19E7T5038264
>   108T6E492735
>   142638507T9E
>   157392E4T608
> 4 1ET089674523
>   16482T3E5079
>   1352749608ET
>   1907E5T38264
>   1T8E60492735
>   1426385T7E90
>   15739204E6T8
> 6 10E9T8674523
>   164T2E305978
>   135274869T0E
>   189705E3T264
>   1ET069482735
>   14263T5E7089
>   1573829406ET
> bs1908E7T65432
>   1T5E30294867
> 8 124365789T0E
>   179604E2T385
>   1ET089573624
>   15382T4E6079
>   1462739508ET
>   1907E6T48253
>   1T8E50392746
>   1325486T7E90
>   16749203E5T8
>   10E9T7865432
>   185T3E204967
> 0 1243657890ET
>   1796E4T20385
>   1T0E89573624
>   1538204T6E79
>   14627395E8T0
>   19E7T6048253
>   108T5E392746
> bS1234567890ET
>
> 2064 rows ending in 1234567890ET
> Touch is true
>
> bs = 1890et
> bS = 123456
>
> 12 Bells
> Peal = 8u, q, 6u, r, 6u, w, u, s, 10u, t, 6u, x
>
>
> p=&x5x4.5x5.36.4x7.58.6x9.70.8x8.9x8x1, +2, "2 @"
> q=&x5x4.5x5.36.4x7.58.6x9.70.8x8.9x8x1, +4, "4 @"
> r=&x5x4.5x5.36.4x7.58.6x9.70.8x8.9x8x1, +6, "6 @"
> s=&x5x4.5x5.36.4x7.58.6x9.70.8x8.9x8x1, +8, "8 @"
> t=&x5x4.5x5.36.4x7.58.6x9.70.8x8.9x8x1, +0, "0 @"
> u=&x5x4.5x5.36.4x7.58.6x9.70.8x8.9x8x1, +T, "  @"
> v=&x5x4.5x5.36.4x7.58.6x9.70.8x8.9x8x1, +1234, "s @"
> w=&x5x4.5x5.36.4x7.58.6x9.70.8x8.9x8x1, +1890et, "bs@"
> x=&x5x4.5x5.36.4x7.58.6x9.70.8x8.9x8x1, +123456, "bS@"
> _______________________________________________
> ringing-theory mailing list
> ringing-theory at bellringers.net
> http://lists.ringingworld.co.uk/listinfo/ringing-theory
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ringingworld.co.uk/pipermail/ringing-theory/attachments/20170201/3fdb4b10/attachment.html>