[r-t] Opinions sought

Ian McCulloch ianmcc at physics.uq.edu.au
Sat Jan 26 14:01:49 GMT 2019

On Sat, 26 Jan 2019, Ted Steele wrote:

> On 26/01/2019 12:20, Ian McCulloch wrote:
>> - there are many ringers (probably most
>> ringers) for whom knowing whether the changes of method are coming at
>> rounds or not, or whether the changes of method come at the lead-end or
>> not, makes a huge difference.  I think it is reasonable to have some
>> terminology that can aid in describing these differences.
> Surely the discussion is about the fact that the term "spliced"; if 
> closely defined, fails to serve this purpose, for the various reasons 
> that have been illustrated.

The proposed definition from Tim Barnes, is: (presumably this is not the 
precise wording) "spliced being a composition in which any changes of 
method occur at a row other than rounds (or more precisely, other than the 
initial row, to account for any ringing that doesn't start from rounds)." 
To me, that captures exactly the 'informal' definition that most ringers 
care about.

Don raised a good point about MEB's that have a change of method at 
internal rounds.  It seems that historically these were classified as 
spliced, but I don't think that's a particularly useful classification. 
Why not call such a composition "mixed" rather than "spliced" ?  In the 
old terminology there is probably no such classification as a "mixed 
method" composition (but please correct me if so!), but that looks like a 
useful description, for conductors as well as ringers.

> However, custom and usage without specific definition, has enabled the 
> term to serve perfectly well for ages and can continue to do so. Perhaps 
> the term should apply to compositions rather than to performances.

Yes the definition as presented by Tim Barnes is in terms of compositions.


More information about the ringing-theory mailing list