[r-t] Similar compositions

Mark Davies mark at snowtiger.net
Thu Jan 25 22:40:01 UTC 2018

Richard Allton writes,

> This implies "Johnson's Variation" is any reduction to 5056 (keeping the 
 >tenors together) irrespective of starting with 2H or not.

Yes, I'd agree with that. I didn't mean to imply that was not the case.

Speaking of tenors together - oddly enough we have Johnson's variation 
rotated so as to keep 2 and 3 unaffected in the G&B composition library 
(no. 4966). But the attribution here is "Comp. Middleton"!

What about this example, though. Keith Scudamore produced this 
arrangement of Yorkshire Royal in 1982:


Nearly two decades later Ben Constant produced a one-course rotation of 
the same peal, which has been a perennial in the RW Diary ever since:


Ben's arrangement nicely optimises the plan for LB music. However, I'm 
sure it is not right to say "Comp. Ben Constant" with no mention of Mr 
Scudamore, irrespective of what was almost certainly an independent 
discovery. The two compositions really are the same, so do we need to 
drop Ben's name completely in favour of Keith's, or is it appropriate to 
use "Arr. Ben Constant from Keith Scudamore"? I favour the latter in 
this case.


More information about the ringing-theory mailing list