[r-t] Spliced Plain Major

John Goldthorpe john.m.goldthorpe at gmail.com
Thu Mar 5 11:50:30 GMT 2020

I composed this a couple of weeks ago whilst investigating the
possibilities for a peal in the same methods ...


These are the 13 methods from the diary (so I'm told) so perhaps not quite
what you were looking for, but near enough to mention it here.


On Thu, 5 Mar 2020 at 09:48, Richard Smith <richard at ex-parrot.com> wrote:

> Last night we rang Don's quarter of spliced plain major in 8
> methods from p72 of the RW diary.  Possibly the first time
> it's been rung?
>    https://bb.ringingworld.co.uk/view.php?id=1333937
> It was probably the first time I'd rung spliced plain major,
> at least to anything more ambitious than Plain and Little; I
> suspect that was true of some of the rest of the band too.
> Everything happens very quickly if you're used to ringing
> surprise, but I enjoyed it and over some Szechuan food
> afterwards, we decided we were keen to try some more of it
> (the spliced, that is, not the food – well, maybe that too).
> As someone who usually rings round the back, I like the
> cyclic seven-part format, as it means I get to ring
> everything too, rather than being stuck ringing one or two
> leads.  However a search of Complib and Don's website
> doesn't turn up anything.  Would any of the composers on
> this list be up for producing something?
> You need 12 leads per part, one of which could be little,
> possibly plus a link method.  At this stage, I don't think I
> want 12 completely different methods or every lead
> different, and I'm fairly ambivalent whether the composition
> should have 12 (or 13) methods with a few simple variants
> (e.g. Double Norwich and Double Oxford, St Clements and
> Childwall, or Plain Bob and Reverse Canterbury), or whether
> we should have some methods repeated.
> I broadly liked the selection of methods we rang last night,
> though with hindsight I wouldn't have included both Highbury
> and Edmonton, and more than one lead of Double Oxford – a
> fairly tedious method on eight – felt a bit unnecessary.
> Double Coslany and Double Sandringham are both very elegant
> methods that I'd like to ring again.  I think there would be
> scope for including another more spikey method.  Other than
> Double Bob and Double Mancroft (the hl/le variant of Double
> Coslany), there are no other double methods, but there must
> be some other good methods out there, possibly still
> unnamed.  It feels like plain major is still a relatively
> unexplored realm.
> In terms of structure, obviously you could use calls to get
> the cyclic part ends.  An excursion of mega-tittums and back
> is an option, but I find that works much better on twelve
> than eight.  The other option is to use a link method such
> as Martyrs Link – with an even number of changes per part,
> please!  I quite like this with surprise, but with 12 leads
> of plain per part, you cannot stay in the same course.  You
> could include two leads of method(s) that swap two pairs in
> the coursing order to invert four coursing bells and give
> you 5678s off the front and 8765s at the back.  Reverse
> Canterbury and St Nicholas and suitable methods for that
> role and are nice and simple.  Not sure how well that would
> work in practice, but the idea of composition with only
> plain leads seems appealing.
> Does anyone fancy seeing what can be done along these lines?
> RAS_______________________________________________
> 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/20200305/07de2032/attachment.html>

More information about the ringing-theory mailing list