[r-t] Opinions sought

Joe Norton super.joey.norton at gmail.com
Mon Jan 28 13:20:50 GMT 2019

This discussion reminds me of a situation that occurred a few years ago. I
wanted to ring a peal of Shellingford S Minor, which is an asymmetric
variant of Hull.

The problem was that calling OIO or something similar gave a false 720.
Surlingham S Minor is the same method but with the asymmetric frontwork
reflected about the half lead. I noticed that if you ring one (false) 720
of each then the resulting 1440 is true.

I argued that the resulting block is spliced, since each round block is
false in itself, but I was met with some argument on the subject.

Shellingford S Minor:
Surlingham S Minor:

As a side note, I now believe that the only way to get a true block of
Shellingford is as a 2880. But I'll happily be corrected...


On Sat, 26 Jan 2019, 14:03 Ian McCulloch, <ianmcc at physics.uq.edu.au> wrote:

> 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.
> Regards,
> Ian
> _______________________________________________
> ringing-theory mailing list
> ringing-theory at bellringers.org
> https://bellringers.org/listinfo/ringing-theory
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://bellringers.org/pipermail/ringing-theory/attachments/20190128/20085f0a/attachment.html>

More information about the ringing-theory mailing list