[r-t] Opinions sought

Ian McCulloch ianmcc at physics.uq.edu.au
Thu Jan 24 16:18:34 GMT 2019

On Thu, 24 Jan 2019, Austin Paul wrote:

>       We considered using the simplest definition, which is that any multi-method performance is spliced -- effectively applying the higher stage definition to all stages.  (And it's invariant under rotation.)  But this
>       would be a big change to current practice, given many peals of 7 Minor and similar are rung that are not described as spliced today, and it would likely be mostly ignored.
> So what's wrong with that? Keeping this arbitrary distinction between mixed and spliced seems to be giving unfair weight to the 'historical' component. Simplicity and permissiveness to me suggest we should abandon; are there any
> other reasons for keeping it?

I think you've got this the wrong way around: for "most" ringers I suspect 
there is a very big difference between "mixed" and "spliced", with "mixed" 
meaning all changes of method occur at rounds, and "spliced" meaning 
"learn all the starts thoroughly, and be prepared!".  For almost all 
ringers, this is the meaningful distinction between mixed and spliced.

It was rather a surprise to me to discover in this discussion that 
historically "spliced" had a wider meaning, and some quarter peal 
compositions of minor that I would have regarded as "mixed" are (by the 
historical definition) actually spliced, despite all changes of method 
occuring at rounds.  It is possible that I've called such a composition - 
I'll have to go back and check as it never occured to me that such a thing 
might actually be described as "spliced".

> Imo, permissiveness means the decisions should suggest that the guidelines determine what may be called spliced and not what must. This performance doesn't even have 'spliced' in the title:
> https://bb.ringingworld.co.uk/view.php?id=1267756.
> If a peal of minor is listed as spliced and has 6 c.o.m, the composition details will likely indicate what was rung.

Well, maybe for some ringers, but I think many ringers regard "7 methods 
minor" and "spliced minor" as very different things, and if I was 
told a peal was to be "spliced minor" I'd be rather disappointed if the 
composition on the day turned out to be 7x720's with 6 changes of method.

Conversely, I've met many ringers who would be fine ringing "mixed" but 
would balk at the idea of "spliced" (using the definition of "mixed" == 
all changes of method at rounds - whether it actually makes round block 
extents or not is irrelevant in this case).  I think if one said "spliced, 
but all changes of method will be at rounds" you'd get a funny look from 
most ringers.

> I feel like the distinction only exists to disappoint ringers who ring their first multi-method quarter peal of doubles only to find out afterwards that it doesn't count as 'spliced'. So the word 'mixed' is added to alleviate
> their spirits.

Has this ever happened to anyone?  Certainly at the towers I'm familiar 
with such confusion is unheard-of.


More information about the ringing-theory mailing list