https://wiki.changeringing.co.uk/api.php?action=feedcontributions&user=SJL&feedformat=atomChangeringing Wiki - User contributions [en-gb]2024-03-29T06:53:21ZUser contributionsMediaWiki 1.34.0https://wiki.changeringing.co.uk/index.php?title=Project_Pickled_Egg_-_Part_17&diff=2246Project Pickled Egg - Part 172019-03-09T08:02:05Z<p>SJL: </p>
<hr />
<div>===[https://complib.org/method/24457 ''Cooktown Orchid Delight Major'']===<br />
<br />
There should be room in any larder for a few luxuries. These will not necessarily be used for everyday cooking, but are there to satisfy the occasional need for an indulgence.<br />
<br />
Cooktown Orchid is a superstar amongst methods. When you look at the line it might not look like anything special, but it is one of ringing’s best kept secrets. It had multiple recommendations for inclusion from the initial consultees, summarised as follows:<br />
<br />
• Supremely musical method<br />
<br />
• Relatively easy, right place<br />
<br />
• Different lead end order (a group)<br />
<br />
• Very good in spliced<br />
<br />
• Delight method, so breaks the illogical aversion to Delight methods<br />
<br />
<br />
That final point, that Cooktown Orchid is a Delight method, has underpinned its recommendation for Project Pickled Egg. In developing the initial method suggestion list, Cooktown Orchid was going to get in anyway on merit, but the fact that it is Delight meant we didn’t have to look any further to ensure one such method was included. <br />
<br />
Before explaining why we felt this delightful urge, I will give as untechnical an explanation as I can of the difference between Surprise and Delight. It is to do with places made when the treble moves between dodging positions (called the ‘cross sections’), i.e. from 1-2 to 3-4, or 3-4 to 5-6, not including a bell leading or lying behind. A Treble Bob method doesn’t have internal places made at any cross section, a Surprise method has an internal place made at every cross section, and a Delight method has an internal place made at some of them (not all or none). <br />
<br />
What is the practical effect of this? Delight methods are a little bit more fluid than Surprise methods, as they have fewer internal places and more hunting. This is noticeable on six bells, but on eight or more it makes little practical difference. Some would argue that Delight methods can actually be better than Surprise. The term Surprise was only first coined as a catch-all term for all the emerging methods that were not Treble Bob or Delight! We would probably be better off if no one had invented the terms in the first place, but we are stuck with them.<br />
<br />
On ten bells, Triton is a popular London-type method and no one cares that it is Delight, whilst on 12, Avon (Delight) is a firm favourite of bands pushing the boat out beyond Bristol (Surprise) Maximus. The Bretton handbell band has just completed the Delight Royal alphabet on handbells. Yet on eight there seems to be reluctance to ring non-Surprise methods, and certainly a reluctance to include them in peals of spliced which would otherwise be described as ‘Spliced Surprise’.<br />
<br />
Inclusion of a Delight method in the Project Pickled Egg selection is intended to demonstrate that Delight methods aren’t some inferior caste, but should sit alongside and amongst Surprise methods at least as equals. Cooktown Orchid, whether rung on its own or in spliced, will be found to be a great method and extremely musical. It is not difficult, although the below and above works both need learning as they will be unfamiliar. <br />
<br />
Alan Reading had this to say about it: “Having rung/composed/called a number of peals of Cooktown Orchid myself I believe that actually it does flow very well and produce the music in nice ways. It's also interesting to note that about 69% of the lead is the same as Cambridge anyway in terms of place notation – it’s only the part of the lead surrounding the quarter and three quarter lead that differs. The fact it captures some of the nice structure of Cambridge but with vastly improved opportunities for all kinds of quantifiable music and significantly reduced falseness is one of the best things about it in my opinion!”<br />
<br />
One issue with Delight methods is that including them in compositions of spliced makes the description of such performances less elegant. When all the methods in a composition are Surprise, the title of the performance becomes ‘Spliced Surprise’ and the individual methods are listed excluding the ‘class descriptors’, e.g. Bristol, Lessness, Superlative, etc, rather than Bristol Surprise, or Bristol S. But when methods with more than one class descriptor are used (e.g. Surprise and Delight), things change. Surprise and Delight (and Treble Bob) all belong to a ‘parent class’ called ‘Treble Dodging’, so you use that in the performance title. This protocol is set out in the draft Framework for Method Ringing which says:<br />
<br />
If the Methods that were spliced have more than one Class Descriptor, any common class elements are included in the Performance title, and the remainder are included in the Method list. For example:<br />
<br />
Performance Title: 1280 Spliced Treble Dodging Major<br />
Performance Detail: 3m: 416 each Cambridge Surprise, Megan Delight; 448 Imperial Treble Bob; 2 com; atw<br />
<br />
In this example the Methods rung do not have the same Class Descriptors, but they are all Treble Dodging Methods. Treble Dodging is therefore included in the Performance Title, and the Method Names and Class Descriptors are included in the Performance Detail.<br />
<br />
Compositions of spliced including Cooktown Orchid will therefore either need to appear as Spliced Treble Dodging Major (as tends to have been the case to date), or could just be referred to as Spliced Major, with abbreviated method class in the description, e.g. Bristol S, Cooktown Orchid D, Superlative S. The obvious temptation is to miss the class descriptor altogether, but this doesn’t enable the performance to be described precisely as the same method names have been used for more than one class (Kent Treble Bob and Kent Surprise).<br />
<br />
Cooktown Orchid is musical in the plain course, generating 5678 runs off the front and back, but comes into its own in longer compositions. AJB offers this particular favourite for a quarter peal:<br />
<br />
1344 Cooktown Orchid Delight Major<br />
Generated by Arr AJB (SMC32)<br />
2345678 W V 4 M H<br />
4235678 -<br />
7354628 - - <br />
2348765 2 <br />
2 part<br />
18 5678, 6 6578, 18 8765, 96 back combinations of 5678<br />
16 front 8765, 16 front 5678, 96 front combinations 5678<br />
24 CRUs 8 1234s front/back, 8 4321s front/back<br />
<br />
Put Cooktown Orchid in the larder. And don’t just save it for special occasions!<br />
<br />
==References==<br />
* [https://bb.ringingworld.co.uk/issues/2018/544 ''The Ringing World''], No 5589, 8 June 2018, pg 544.</div>SJLhttps://wiki.changeringing.co.uk/index.php?title=Project_Pickled_Egg_-_Part_24&diff=2241Project Pickled Egg - Part 242018-12-23T08:24:16Z<p>SJL: /* Rook and Gaskill Surprise Major */</p>
<hr />
<div>===[https://complib.org/method/20401 ''Rook and Gaskill Surprise Major'']===<br />
<br />
One more method. I could go on forever with this, but the end of the year is approaching and my focus needs to shift to producing books and materials to support this initiative. Also, we have got to the point now where there ceases to be a clear or best path. Anyone who gets this far is pretty well equipped to learn almost anything. <br />
<br />
The final method is not a particularly difficult one – Glasgow will remain the most difficult – it is something in the middle. It is called Rook and Gaskill, named after a pub in York, which was in turn named after two sheep rustlers who were found hanging around in the city in 1776. It is a relatively recent method, devised by David Hull and first rung in 2003, and the identification of such a young method supports my belief that this group of methods should be reviewed and updated periodically to follow new trends. <br />
<br />
In my initial discussion with the small group who started brainstorming this project, once we got past what have become the Core Seven and a few obvious extras, we started tossing around a number of different styles of method. A couple of paragraphs of my discussion paper were titled “34x58.14 Belfast, Hertford, etc”, and “Something like Sussex 38x58.14.” That the discussion was identifying method styles by the first section of the place notation is something I now want to look at.<br />
<br />
Reference to the ‘first section’ is a piece of technical ringing jargon that may not be clear. The vast majority of ringers do not focus on place notation or care too much about it. Even some of the most experienced would be none the wiser when informed that a method starts 38x38.14 and it wouldn’t help them one jot in ringing the method. One can manage perfectly well without this knowledge! <br />
<br />
The place notation does however tend to get thought of in ‘sections’, with a section being the rows when the treble is in one dodging position. You need four elements of notation to make a section. For example, the first section of Cambridge Major is x38x14, where x38x causes the dodge, and the 14 takes the treble from 2nds to 3rds place ready to start the second section. The first section can be very helpful to know even if you predominantly learn by the blue line, because it is the quickest way of knowing all the starts and most of the above work (because in the second and third sections there isn’t much room above the treble for variation).<br />
<br />
With formulaic methods, particularly on higher numbers, you tend to start seeing patterns emerging in the place notation in the sections beyond the first section. Consider Glasgow for instance, and its most popular extension Strathclyde Maximus. The first section is the same for both methods, the next two sections are the same but without obvious pattern, but the last section clearly becomes a pattern that then generates repetitive work as the treble leaves 5-6.<br />
<br />
Glasgow 36x56.14 58x58.36 x14x38 16x16.38<br />
<br />
Strathclyde 36x56.14 5Tx5T.36 x14x3T 16x16.3T 16x16.3T 16x16.3T<br />
<br />
Note here I have separated the different sections for clarity, and the 8 and T are essentially the same, i.e. the last position in the row. <br />
<br />
So, the first section does define the method to quite a degree, and there are some first sections that are much more common and ‘user friendly’ than others. We considered (and included) a few different ones, but the last one I want to include above all others is 38x58.14, usually referred to as that of Sussex. <br />
<br />
Rook and Gaskill is Sussex above, a wrong place above work with a start we have not seen before, with this difficulty tempered by a friendly F group lead end order like Lessness and London, and a right place below work. Sussex above work is quite like Whalley (which starts 58x58.14) - both have the pair of parallel Stedman whole turns as the treble gets to 3-4. Whalley is familiar to many as it is one of the more difficult methods in Smiths 23, while Sussex is familiar to rather fewer as it is one of the easier methods in the much more difficult Chandlers 23. Whalley has what was once my favourite pivot bell (how sad is that!), while R&G’s is a bit more static. This start is a good roll-up generator, and with <br />
friendly Bc falseness it has good compositional possibilities. <br />
<br />
There were some other suggestions for methods with Sussex starts, such as Barbican, but I think R&G introduces this start and backwork in a musical method that doesn’t complicate matters with a difficult below work or unfamiliar lead end order. <br />
<br />
Ultimately this project will not be judged by the number of ringers who end up ringing Rook and Gaskill. It will be judged by the number of ringers who adopt the Core Seven as their pathway into Treble Dodging Major and the number of more experienced ringers who put in the effort to help them.<br />
<br />
<br />
1344 Rook and Gaskill Surprise Major<br />
Composed by Brian E Whiting<br />
2345678 M F B V H<br />
34256 2<br />
4735268 – – <br />
2345678 3 – – –<br />
31 5678s (16f,15b), 6 6578s (6f,0b), 40 crus (22f,18b), 89 4-bell runs (46f,43b), 192 5678 combinations (96f,96b), 31 8765s (16f,15b), Kings, Backrounds.<br />
<br />
==References==<br />
* [https://bb.ringingworld.co.uk/issues/2018/1274 ''The Ringing World''], No 5617/8, 21 Dec 2018, pg 1274.</div>SJLhttps://wiki.changeringing.co.uk/index.php?title=Project_Pickled_Egg_-_Part_24&diff=2240Project Pickled Egg - Part 242018-12-23T08:23:59Z<p>SJL: /* Rook and Gaskill Surprise Major */</p>
<hr />
<div>===[https://complib.org/method/20401 ''Rook and Gaskill Surprise Major'']===<br />
<br />
One more method. I could go on forever with this, but the end of the year is approaching and my focus needs to shift to producing books and materials to support this initiative. Also, we have got to the point now where there ceases to be a clear or best path. Anyone who gets this far is pretty well equipped to learn almost anything. <br />
<br />
The final method is not a particularly difficult one – Glasgow will remain the most difficult – it is something in the middle. It is called Rook and Gaskill, named after a pub in York, which was in turn named after two sheep rustlers who were found hanging around in the city in 1776. It is a relatively recent method, devised by David Hull and first rung in 2003, and the identification of such a young method supports my belief that this group of methods should be reviewed and updated periodically to follow new trends. <br />
<br />
In my initial discussion with the small group who started brainstorming this project, once we got past what have become the Core Seven and a few obvious extras, we started tossing around a number of different styles of method. A couple of paragraphs of my discussion paper were titled “34x58.14 Belfast, Hertford, etc”, and “Something like Sussex 38x58.14.” That the discussion was identifying method styles by the first section of the place notation is something I now want to look at.<br />
<br />
Reference to the ‘first section’ is a piece of technical ringing jargon that may not be clear. The vast majority of ringers do not focus on place notation or care too much about it. Even some of the most experienced would be none the wiser when informed that a method starts 38x38.14 and it wouldn’t help them one jot in ringing the method. One can manage perfectly well without this knowledge! <br />
<br />
The place notation does however tend to get thought of in ‘sections’, with a section being the rows when the treble is in one dodging position. You need four elements of notation to make a section. For example, the first section of Cambridge Major is x38x14, where x38x causes the dodge, and the 14 takes the treble from 2nds to 3rds place ready to start the second section. The first section can be very helpful to know even if you predominantly learn by the blue line, because it is the quickest way of knowing all the starts and most of the above work (because in the second and third sections there isn’t much room above the treble for variation).<br />
<br />
With formulaic methods, particularly on higher numbers, you tend to start seeing patterns emerging in the place notation in the sections beyond the first section. Consider Glasgow for instance, and its most popular extension Strathclyde Maximus. The first section is the same for both methods, the next two sections are the same but without obvious pattern, but the last section clearly becomes a pattern that then generates repetitive work as the treble leaves 5-6.<br />
<br />
Glasgow 36x56.14 58x58.36 x14x38 16x16.38<br />
<br />
Strathclyde 36x56.14 5Tx5T.36 x14x3T 16x16.3T 16x16.3T 16x16.3T<br />
<br />
Note here I have separated the different sections for clarity, and the 8 and T are essentially the same, i.e. the last position in the row. <br />
<br />
So, the first section does define the method to quite a degree, and there are some first sections that are much more common and ‘user friendly’ than others. We considered (and included) a few different ones, but the last one I want to include above all others is 38x58.14, usually referred to as that of Sussex. <br />
<br />
Rook and Gaskill is Sussex above, a wrong place above work with a start we have not seen before, with this difficulty tempered by a friendly F group lead end order like Lessness and London, and a right place below work. Sussex above work is quite like Whalley (which starts 58x58.14) - both have the pair of parallel Stedman whole turns as the treble gets to 3-4. Whalley is familiar to many as it is one of the more difficult methods in Smiths 23, while Sussex is familiar to rather fewer as it is one of the easier methods in the much more difficult Chandlers 23. Whalley has what was once my favourite pivot bell (how sad is that!), while R&G’s is a bit more static. This start is a good roll-up generator, and with <br />
friendly Bc falseness it has good compositional possibilities. <br />
<br />
There were some other suggestions for methods with Sussex starts, such as Barbican, but I think R&G introduces this start and backwork in a musical method that doesn’t complicate matters with a difficult below work or unfamiliar lead end order. <br />
<br />
Ultimately this project will not be judged by the number of ringers who end up ringing Rook and Gaskill. It will be judged by the number of ringers who adopt the Core Seven as their pathway into Treble Dodging Major and the number of more experienced ringers who put in the effort to help them.<br />
<br />
<br />
1344 Rook and Gaskill Surprise Major<br />
Composed by Brian E Whiting<br />
2345678 M F B V H<br />
34256 2<br />
4735268 – – <br />
2345678 3 – – –<br />
31 5678s (16f,15b), 6 6578s (6f,0b), 40 crus (22f,18b), 89 4-bell runs (46f,43b), 192 5678 combinations (96f,96b), 31 8765s (16f,15b), Kings, Backrounds.<br />
<br />
==References==<br />
* [https://bb.ringingworld.co.uk/issues/2018/1274 ''The Ringing World''], No 5617/8, 21 Dec 2018, pg 1274.</div>SJLhttps://wiki.changeringing.co.uk/index.php?title=Project_Pickled_Egg_-_Part_24&diff=2239Project Pickled Egg - Part 242018-12-23T08:23:40Z<p>SJL: </p>
<hr />
<div>===[https://complib.org/method/20401 ''Rook and Gaskill Surprise Major'']===<br />
<br />
One more method. I could go on forever with this, but the end of the year is approaching and my focus needs to shift to producing books and materials to support this initiative. Also, we have got to the point now where there ceases to be a clear or best path. Anyone who gets this far is pretty well equipped to learn almost anything. <br />
<br />
The final method is not a particularly difficult one – Glasgow will remain the most difficult – it is something in the middle. It is called Rook and Gaskill, named after a pub in York, which was in turn named after two sheep rustlers who were found hanging around in the city in 1776. It is a relatively recent method, devised by David Hull and first rung in 2003, and the identification of such a young method supports my belief that this group of methods should be reviewed and updated periodically to follow new trends. <br />
<br />
In my initial discussion with the small group who started brainstorming this project, once we got past what have become the Core Seven and a few obvious extras, we started tossing around a number of different styles of method. A couple of paragraphs of my discussion paper were titled “34x58.14 Belfast, Hertford, etc”, and “Something like Sussex 38x58.14.” That the discussion was identifying method styles by the first section of the place notation is something I now want to look at.<br />
<br />
Reference to the ‘first section’ is a piece of technical ringing jargon that may not be clear. The vast majority of ringers do not focus on place notation or care too much about it. Even some of the most experienced would be none the wiser when informed that a method starts 38x38.14 and it wouldn’t help them one jot in ringing the method. One can manage perfectly well without this knowledge! <br />
<br />
The place notation does however tend to get thought of in ‘sections’, with a section being the rows when the treble is in one dodging position. You need four elements of notation to make a section. For example, the first section of Cambridge Major is x38x14, where x38x causes the dodge, and the 14 takes the treble from 2nds to 3rds place ready to start the second section. The first section can be very helpful to know even if you predominantly learn by the blue line, because it is the quickest way of knowing all the starts and most of the above work (because in the second and third sections there isn’t much room above the treble for variation).<br />
<br />
With formulaic methods, particularly on higher numbers, you tend to start seeing patterns emerging in the place notation in the sections beyond the first section. Consider Glasgow for instance, and its most popular extension Strathclyde Maximus. The first section is the same for both methods, the next two sections are the same but without obvious pattern, but the last section clearly becomes a pattern that then generates repetitive work as the treble leaves 5-6.<br />
<br />
Glasgow 36x56.14 58x58.36 x14x38 16x16.38<br />
<br />
Strathclyde 36x56.14 5Tx5T.36 x14x3T 16x16.3T 16x16.3T 16x16.3T<br />
<br />
Note here I have separated the different sections for clarity, and the 8 and T are essentially the same, i.e. the last position in the row. <br />
<br />
So, the first section does define the method to quite a degree, and there are some first sections that are much more common and ‘user friendly’ than others. We considered (and included) a few different ones, but the last one I want to include above all others is 38x58.14, usually referred to as that of Sussex. <br />
<br />
Rook and Gaskill is Sussex above, a wrong place above work with a start we have not seen before, with this difficulty tempered by a friendly F group lead end order like Lessness and London, and a right place below work. Sussex above work is quite like Whalley (which starts 58x58.14) - both have the pair of parallel Stedman whole turns as the treble gets to 3-4. Whalley is familiar to many as it is one of the more difficult methods in Smiths 23, while Sussex is familiar to rather fewer as it is one of the easier methods in the much more difficult Chandlers 23. Whalley has what was once my favourite pivot bell (how sad is that!), while R&G’s is a bit more static. This start is a good roll-up generator, and with <br />
friendly Bc falseness it has good compositional possibilities. <br />
<br />
There were some other suggestions for methods with Sussex starts, such as Barbican, but I think R&G introduces this start and backwork in a musical method that doesn’t complicate matters with a difficult below work or unfamiliar lead end order. <br />
<br />
Ultimately this project will not be judged by the number of ringers who end up ringing Rook and Gaskill. It will be judged by the number of ringers who adopt the Core Seven as their pathway into Treble Dodging Major and the number of more experienced ringers who put in the effort to help them.<br />
<br />
<br />
1344 Rook and Gaskill Surprise Major<br />
Composed by Brian E Whiting<br />
2345678 M F B V H<br />
34256 2<br />
4735268 – – <br />
2345678 3 – – –<br />
31 5678s (16f,15b), 6 6578s (6f,0b), 40 crus (22f,18b), 89 4-bell runs (46f,43b), 192 5678 combinations (96f,96b), 31 8765s (16f,15b), Kings, Backrounds.<br />
<br />
<br />
==References==<br />
* [https://bb.ringingworld.co.uk/issues/2018/1274 ''The Ringing World''], No 5617/8, 21 Dec 2018, pg 1274.</div>SJLhttps://wiki.changeringing.co.uk/index.php?title=Project_Pickled_Egg_-_Part_24&diff=2238Project Pickled Egg - Part 242018-12-23T08:23:22Z<p>SJL: Created page with "===[https://complib.org/method/20401 ''Rook and Gaskill Surprise Major'']=== One more method. I could go on forever with this, but the end of the year is approaching and my f..."</p>
<hr />
<div>===[https://complib.org/method/20401 ''Rook and Gaskill Surprise Major'']===<br />
<br />
One more method. I could go on forever with this, but the end of the year is approaching and my focus needs to shift to producing books and materials to support this initiative. Also, we have got to the point now where there ceases to be a clear or best path. Anyone who gets this far is pretty well equipped to learn almost anything. <br />
<br />
The final method is not a particularly difficult one – Glasgow will remain the most difficult – it is something in the middle. It is called Rook and Gaskill, named after a pub in York, which was in turn named after two sheep rustlers who were found hanging around in the city in 1776. It is a relatively recent method, devised by David Hull and first rung in 2003, and the identification of such a young method supports my belief that this group of methods should be reviewed and updated periodically to follow new trends. <br />
<br />
In my initial discussion with the small group who started brainstorming this project, once we got past what have become the Core Seven and a few obvious extras, we started tossing around a number of different styles of method. A couple of paragraphs of my discussion paper were titled “34x58.14 Belfast, Hertford, etc”, and “Something like Sussex 38x58.14.” That the discussion was identifying method styles by the first section of the place notation is something I now want to look at.<br />
<br />
Reference to the ‘first section’ is a piece of technical ringing jargon that may not be clear. The vast majority of ringers do not focus on place notation or care too much about it. Even some of the most experienced would be none the wiser when informed that a method starts 38x38.14 and it wouldn’t help them one jot in ringing the method. One can manage perfectly well without this knowledge! <br />
<br />
The place notation does however tend to get thought of in ‘sections’, with a section being the rows when the treble is in one dodging position. You need four elements of notation to make a section. For example, the first section of Cambridge Major is x38x14, where x38x causes the dodge, and the 14 takes the treble from 2nds to 3rds place ready to start the second section. The first section can be very helpful to know even if you predominantly learn by the blue line, because it is the quickest way of knowing all the starts and most of the above work (because in the second and third sections there isn’t much room above the treble for variation).<br />
<br />
With formulaic methods, particularly on higher numbers, you tend to start seeing patterns emerging in the place notation in the sections beyond the first section. Consider Glasgow for instance, and its most popular extension Strathclyde Maximus. The first section is the same for both methods, the next two sections are the same but without obvious pattern, but the last section clearly becomes a pattern that then generates repetitive work as the treble leaves 5-6.<br />
<br />
Glasgow 36x56.14 58x58.36 x14x38 16x16.38<br />
Strathclyde 36x56.14 5Tx5T.36 x14x3T 16x16.3T 16x16.3T 16x16.3T<br />
<br />
Note here I have separated the different sections for clarity, and the 8 and T are essentially the same, i.e. the last position in the row. <br />
<br />
So, the first section does define the method to quite a degree, and there are some first sections that are much more common and ‘user friendly’ than others. We considered (and included) a few different ones, but the last one I want to include above all others is 38x58.14, usually referred to as that of Sussex. <br />
<br />
Rook and Gaskill is Sussex above, a wrong place above work with a start we have not seen before, with this difficulty tempered by a friendly F group lead end order like Lessness and London, and a right place below work. Sussex above work is quite like Whalley (which starts 58x58.14) - both have the pair of parallel Stedman whole turns as the treble gets to 3-4. Whalley is familiar to many as it is one of the more difficult methods in Smiths 23, while Sussex is familiar to rather fewer as it is one of the easier methods in the much more difficult Chandlers 23. Whalley has what was once my favourite pivot bell (how sad is that!), while R&G’s is a bit more static. This start is a good roll-up generator, and with <br />
friendly Bc falseness it has good compositional possibilities. <br />
<br />
There were some other suggestions for methods with Sussex starts, such as Barbican, but I think R&G introduces this start and backwork in a musical method that doesn’t complicate matters with a difficult below work or unfamiliar lead end order. <br />
<br />
Ultimately this project will not be judged by the number of ringers who end up ringing Rook and Gaskill. It will be judged by the number of ringers who adopt the Core Seven as their pathway into Treble Dodging Major and the number of more experienced ringers who put in the effort to help them.<br />
<br />
<br />
1344 Rook and Gaskill Surprise Major<br />
Composed by Brian E Whiting<br />
2345678 M F B V H<br />
34256 2<br />
4735268 – – <br />
2345678 3 – – –<br />
31 5678s (16f,15b), 6 6578s (6f,0b), 40 crus (22f,18b), 89 4-bell runs (46f,43b), 192 5678 combinations (96f,96b), 31 8765s (16f,15b), Kings, Backrounds.<br />
<br />
<br />
==References==<br />
* [https://bb.ringingworld.co.uk/issues/2018/1274 ''The Ringing World''], No 5617/8, 21 Dec 2018, pg 1274.</div>SJLhttps://wiki.changeringing.co.uk/index.php?title=Project_Pickled_Egg_-_Part_23&diff=2237Project Pickled Egg - Part 232018-12-23T08:18:19Z<p>SJL: </p>
<hr />
<div>===[https://complib.org/method/25093 ''Mareham Delight Major'']===<br />
<br />
I am going to start this article, the penultimate in the series, by discussing Belfast, which along with Glasgow generated more debate than all the other methods put together. <br />
<br />
Glasgow and Belfast are often uttered in the same breath when discussing methods which are very difficult but commonly rung. In Part 20 I concluded that Glasgow had made it into our ‘spice rack’ – an iconic method, and something to aim at as a significant challenge. Belfast however is not going to follow it. <br />
<br />
The arguments found in favour of including Belfast in Project Pickled Egg were as follows:<br />
<br />
• Useful formulaic above work<br />
<br />
• It is included in some well known compositions (Horton’s 4,Chandler’s 23)<br />
<br />
• Being an mx method (like Bristol), it can be rung as a three lead touch, which is useful in a practice environment<br />
<br />
• Hugely structured so helps in understanding how bells work together even in difficult methods<br />
<br />
• Concept of pairs of points at the same stroke, crossing over the half lead, is very useful and not seen before<br />
<br />
<br />
However, there were arguments against Belfast as well:<br />
<br />
• It is nothing special musically<br />
<br />
• The structure above the treble is not particularly obvious when only rung on 8, and isn’t that common on higher numbers<br />
<br />
• Falseness gets in the way of exploiting musical potential<br />
<br />
• There are better alternatives for introducing the same concepts<br />
<br />
• Apart from Belfast's inclusion in well known compositions, and its familiarity, none of the other arguments in Belfast's favour are unique to Belfast. <br />
<br />
<br />
When the inclusion of Belfast was put to the vote in an online poll, 31 respondents voted to include a better method that includes the key features, 11 went for straight exclusion, and a couple went for including it. 44 people is not a huge sample but it is a pretty good indication given it wasn’t even close (Glasgow voting was much closer). <br />
<br />
Belfast just did not get enough support. It’s not a bad method by any means, and it is not disapproved of. Marianne Fisher summarised it pretty well:<br />
<br />
“Glasgow and Belfast will of course still be rung whether they're in PPE or not - their place in iconic compositions assures that. To exclude them from PPE simply says that they're not essential parts of the early curriculum. As an analogy, there are thousands of English words that are interesting and/or useful (or even just showy), but you don't need them to pass an English Language A-level. Keeping them off the curriculum is not the same as cutting them from the dictionary.”<br />
<br />
The method most highly rated as an alternative to Belfast is Mareham Delight. It doesn’t have the benefit of being mx, and isn’t known by lots of other ringers yet, but it has less debilitating falseness than Belfast, and has more musical potential. So what are the features of Belfast that were considered worthy of inclusion that Mareham delivers? <br />
<br />
1. Formulaic or rules-based backwork. <br />
<br />
Commonly used expressions but what does this mean? You could argue that all backworks have a formula or are based on rules. However it is the description of backworks where all the place bells start by doing the same thing relative to their starting position for a few rows, before settling into treble bobbing. Belfast starts with all the back bells (5-8) doing a point then a fishtail (when treble is in 3-4), and then treble bobbing after the treble has left 3-4. Last week’s methods, Jovium and Bolonium, have an overwork featuring a pair of fishtails, the second when the treble is in 5-6. The rule in London-above methods is to wrong hunt four places to a fishtail (treble in 3-4), then treble bob back the way you came. <br />
<br />
There are lots of these regular structures, with some used much more than others. They are practically helpful as if you know the formula or the rules you know the starts for a whole batch of place bells, and quite a bit of the rest of the line. It is also helpful for the conductor who may be able to see the regular structure and make sure that bells execute the structure relative to each other and the treble. <br />
<br />
There is definitely merit in getting used to different above works like this, especially ones which are most commonly used at the moment. Belfast isn’t actually a particularly widely used one, but the above work in Mareham is, and should this Project extend to 10 and 12 there will almost certainly be methods with this above work featured. In Mareham the back bells hunt three blows to a point at handstroke, then hunt back to a point where they started at backstroke, and then treble bob. So 8ths place bell does point 5, point 8, and then meets the treble in 5-6. It might not seem so obvious with 6ths and 7ths place bells, but the structure is still there – you just have to see that the places made in 5ths and 8ths are part of the plain hunting. Key is that the four place bells involved do the two points in sync with each other. <br />
<br />
2. Cascading pairs of points. <br />
<br />
This is best explained by looking at the line – the feature comes in 8ths place bell after dodging with the treble in 5-6, and in 3rds place bell going in the opposite direction. See how these two place bells do two pairs of points, then they cross over across the half lead, and then do another pair of points. A key feature of the pairs of points is that they are at the same stroke. Belfast also has these cascading pairs of points across the half lead, and other difficult methods do as well. It is actually quite satisfying to ring, working with and maybe even helping the bell coming in the other direction. <br />
<br />
3. Hugely structured. <br />
<br />
As you learn and ring this method it should be possible and helpful to see how the work of bells fit together. I’ve talked about the work above the treble and how that all fits together, the bells doing the cascading points fit together; the frontwork is quite static but again you should be able to see what the bell you are working with is doing. <br />
<br />
<br />
Mareham then is the second Delight method to make it into the larder – a difficult and worthy addition. It is arguably more difficult than Belfast because of the lead end order, and it will be interesting to see whether bands aspire to ringing it. <br />
<br />
1344 Mareham Delight Major<br />
Composed by Robert W Lee<br />
2345678 1 2 3 5<br />
34256 2<br />
2435876 s – s –<br />
2437658 s s – <br />
2 part.<br />
18 5678s (3f,15b), 2 6578s (2f,0b), 24 crus (7f,17b), 61 4-bell runs (25f,36b), 256 5678 combinations (96f,160b), 16 8765s (6f,10b).<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
==References==<br />
* [https://bb.ringingworld.co.uk/issues/2018/1249 ''The Ringing World''], No 5616, 14 Dec 2018, pg 1249.</div>SJLhttps://wiki.changeringing.co.uk/index.php?title=Project_Pickled_Egg_-_Part_23&diff=2236Project Pickled Egg - Part 232018-12-23T08:17:08Z<p>SJL: Created page with "===[https://complib.org/method/25093 ''Mareham Delight Major'']=== I am going to start this article, the penultimate in the series, by discussing Belfast, which along with Gl..."</p>
<hr />
<div>===[https://complib.org/method/25093 ''Mareham Delight Major'']===<br />
<br />
I am going to start this article, the penultimate in the series, by discussing Belfast, which along with Glasgow generated more debate than all the other methods put together. <br />
<br />
Glasgow and Belfast are often uttered in the same breath when discussing methods which are very difficult but commonly rung. In Part 20 I concluded that Glasgow had made it into our ‘spice rack’ – an iconic method, and something to aim at as a significant challenge. Belfast however is not going to follow it. <br />
<br />
The arguments found in favour of including Belfast in Project Pickled Egg were as follows:<br />
<br />
• Useful formulaic above work<br />
<br />
• It is included in some well known compositions (Horton’s 4,Chandler’s 23)<br />
<br />
• Being an mx method (like Bristol), it can be rung as a three lead touch, which is useful in a practice environment<br />
<br />
• Hugely structured so helps in understanding how bells work together even in difficult methods<br />
<br />
• Concept of pairs of points at the same stroke, crossing over the half lead, is very useful and not seen before<br />
<br />
However, there were arguments against Belfast as well:<br />
<br />
• It is nothing special musically<br />
<br />
• The structure above the treble is not particularly obvious when only rung on 8, and isn’t that common on higher numbers<br />
<br />
• Falseness gets in the way of exploiting musical potential<br />
<br />
• There are better alternatives for introducing the same concepts<br />
<br />
• Apart from Belfast's inclusion in well known compositions, and its familiarity, none of the other arguments in Belfast's favour are unique to Belfast. <br />
<br />
When the inclusion of Belfast was put to the vote in an online poll, 31 respondents voted to include a better method that includes the key features, 11 went for straight exclusion, and a couple went for including it. 44 people is not a huge sample but it is a pretty good indication given it wasn’t even close (Glasgow voting was much closer). <br />
<br />
Belfast just did not get enough support. It’s not a bad method by any means, and it is not disapproved of. Marianne Fisher summarised it pretty well:<br />
<br />
“Glasgow and Belfast will of course still be rung whether they're in PPE or not - their place in iconic compositions assures that. To exclude them from PPE simply says that they're not essential parts of the early curriculum. As an analogy, there are thousands of English words that are interesting and/or useful (or even just showy), but you don't need them to pass an English Language A-level. Keeping them off the curriculum is not the same as cutting them from the dictionary.”<br />
<br />
The method most highly rated as an alternative to Belfast is Mareham Delight. It doesn’t have the benefit of being mx, and isn’t known by lots of other ringers yet, but it has less debilitating falseness than Belfast, and has more musical potential. So what are the features of Belfast that were considered worthy of inclusion that Mareham delivers? <br />
<br />
1. Formulaic or rules-based backwork. <br />
Commonly used expressions but what does this mean? You could argue that all backworks have a formula or are based on rules. However it is the description of backworks where all the place bells start by doing the same thing relative to their starting position for a few rows, before settling into treble bobbing. Belfast starts with all the back bells (5-8) doing a point then a fishtail (when treble is in 3-4), and then treble bobbing after the treble has left 3-4. Last week’s methods, Jovium and Bolonium, have an overwork featuring a pair of fishtails, the second when the treble is in 5-6. The rule in London-above methods is to wrong hunt four places to a fishtail (treble in 3-4), then treble bob back the way you came. <br />
<br />
There are lots of these regular structures, with some used much more than others. They are practically helpful as if you know the formula or the rules you know the starts for a whole batch of place bells, and quite a bit of the rest of the line. It is also helpful for the conductor who may be able to see the regular structure and make sure that bells execute the structure relative to each other and the treble. <br />
<br />
There is definitely merit in getting used to different above works like this, especially ones which are most commonly used at the moment. Belfast isn’t actually a particularly widely used one, but the above work in Mareham is, and should this Project extend to 10 and 12 there will almost certainly be methods with this above work featured. In Mareham the back bells hunt three blows to a point at handstroke, then hunt back to a point where they started at backstroke, and then treble bob. So 8ths place bell does point 5, point 8, and then meets the treble in 5-6. It might not seem so obvious with 6ths and 7ths place bells, but the structure is still there – you just have to see that the places made in 5ths and 8ths are part of the plain hunting. Key is that the four place bells involved do the two points in sync with each other. <br />
<br />
2. Cascading pairs of points. <br />
This is best explained by looking at the line – the feature comes in 8ths place bell after dodging with the treble in 5-6, and in 3rds place bell going in the opposite direction. See how these two place bells do two pairs of points, then they cross over across the half lead, and then do another pair of points. A key feature of the pairs of points is that they are at the same stroke. Belfast also has these cascading pairs of points across the half lead, and other difficult methods do as well. It is actually quite satisfying to ring, working with and maybe even helping the bell coming in the other direction. <br />
<br />
3. Hugely structured. <br />
As you learn and ring this method it should be possible and helpful to see how the work of bells fit together. I’ve talked about the work above the treble and how that all fits together, the bells doing the cascading points fit together; the frontwork is quite static but again you should be able to see what the bell you are working with is doing. <br />
<br />
<br />
Mareham then is the second Delight method to make it into the larder – a difficult and worthy addition. It is arguably more difficult than Belfast because of the lead end order, and it will be interesting to see whether bands aspire to ringing it. <br />
<br />
1344 Mareham Delight Major<br />
Composed by Robert W Lee<br />
2345678 1 2 3 5<br />
34256 2<br />
2435876 s – s –<br />
2437658 s s – <br />
2 part.<br />
18 5678s (3f,15b), 2 6578s (2f,0b), 24 crus (7f,17b), 61 4-bell runs (25f,36b), 256 5678 combinations (96f,160b), 16 8765s (6f,10b).<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
==References==<br />
* [https://bb.ringingworld.co.uk/issues/2018/1249 ''The Ringing World''], No 5616, 14 Dec 2018, pg 1249.</div>SJLhttps://wiki.changeringing.co.uk/index.php?title=Project_Pickled_Egg_-_Part_22&diff=2235Project Pickled Egg - Part 222018-12-23T08:15:44Z<p>SJL: </p>
<hr />
<div>===''On the subject of difficulty...''===<br />
<br />
One posting on the PPE Facebook group which I am going to explore in this article was by Robert Wood, who asked “Does anyone know of a more difficult Surprise Major method than [https://complib.org/method/21124 ''Nimrod Surprise Major'']?” Earlier discussion had concluded that Project Pickled Egg would have one or more difficult methods to give a target. But what makes a method difficult? After all, Bristol is difficult if you only know Cambridge. Does difficult mean the same to everyone? How difficult is difficult enough? <br />
<br />
Nimrod is certainly above-averagely tricky. For starters it is not symmetrical around the half lead as we expect our methods to be, but has rotational symmetry. This definitely makes it harder to learn (nearly twice as hard probably) – many of us can see one place bell being the reverse of another, but seeing one place bell as another one upside down and starting at the half lead would be beyond most! It also has its fair share of the features or ‘motifs’ associated with more difficult methods, such as points, fishtails, Stedman whole turns, wrong hunting and wrong places. However it was not long before Nimrod had been classified by the cognoscenti as “not very difficult really”, and suggestions of greater challenges ensued. <br />
<br />
So what makes a difficult method? When we learn methods, we make it easier for ourselves by recognising structures we have seen and rung before. There is less to learn if you can identify and define chunks such as Yorkshire places, a five-pull dodge, or even a method being the same above the treble as something else you know. The more methods you ring, the more structures become familiar, and the easier learning becomes. The features of London or Bristol that look so difficult the first time you see them are very commonly used, and whereas familiarity doesn’t breed contempt exactly, it does breed comfort. <br />
<br />
The second half of the lead of Nimrod is the same as Bristol, and the first half is largely made up of features found in other known methods, so this was what lead to its dismissal. Chris Adams’ Method Master programme includes a ‘difficulty score’ which he says “is a balance of several factors” and includes the number of changes of direction in its algorithm. Chris says it was only a bit of fun and a rough guide, however just picking a few examples of the scores it gives highlights issues with measuring difficulty:<br />
<br />
Bristol 2016 v London 1084<br />
(I would say Bristol is actually easier)<br />
<br />
Glasgow 2512 v Belfast 4340 <br />
(Glasgow generally considered to be much harder)<br />
<br />
The most difficult methods tend to be the ones that are unlike anything else you know. They have short structures, single places that cause you to hunt differently, isolated points, odd starts. Sam Austin’s band that set itself a goal of ringing quarter peals of all the 100 surprise methods rung in the record all the work peal found the most difficult method to be [https://complib.org/method/20964 ''Sir Isaac Newton'']. Take a look at it and it doesn’t look scary, but the devil is in the detail. <br />
<br />
I think probably the most difficult composition of 23 Spliced ever rung was Peter King’s [https://complib.org/composition/13603 ''composition''] of 23 Treble Bob methods, with names such as Crazy, Loathsome, Diabolical and Killer. I wasn't in it, but know people who were in it whose view on the subject I respect. The longest structure you can have in a TB method is a fishtail so there is not a lot to hang onto and a lot of detail to learn. The fewer internal places in Treble Bob methods (by definition) means more movement, and this composition took it to extremes. <br />
<br />
Different ringers see difficulty slightly differently depending on what they are used to, what they have seen before, or how easily they can mentally convert one structure into another. The relatively few ringers who just learn grids will see patterns that the pure line learners do not, they may see sections of method that are the same as something else that is not readily apparent from the line. This is one of the reasons that awareness of the grid is useful – it can throw up patterns and give clues as to how bits of line fit together. <br />
<br />
Generally though we all sing from the same hymn sheet in terms of what is found difficult, and given we don’t ring alone, the proof of the pudding is in the eating. For less experienced bands, harder methods tend to cause the most problems. Interestingly though for very experienced bands ringing lots of methods in Spliced, the hardest methods are often rung the best and the trips come when people relax in the easy ones!<br />
<br />
Finally, how difficult is difficult enough? I have heard it said that the best bonus scheme for sales people is one that 70% of the sales force will attain. Targets that are too far away are more likely to demotivate than incentivise, but the challenge needs to be enough to spur on the majority. Maybe the same is true here. We could actually come up with some real stinkers of methods to provide a target but they wouldn’t get rung and wouldn’t serve the Project’s purpose. In looking for one or two more methods to join our larder’s ‘spice rack’ alongside Glasgow, we don’t want “Ring of Fire Hot Sauce” (which looked liked a good idea when I bought it), we just need something like Nando’s Medium Peri-Peri. <br />
<br />
Sir Isaac Newton isn’t going to make it, neither are Crazy, Loathsome, Diabolical or Killer. They are not tests anyone will enjoy taking. Maybe we need something a bit like Belfast after all …<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
==References==<br />
* [https://bb.ringingworld.co.uk/issues/2018/1225 ''The Ringing World''], No 5615, 7 Dec 2018, pg 1225.</div>SJLhttps://wiki.changeringing.co.uk/index.php?title=Project_Pickled_Egg_-_Part_22&diff=2234Project Pickled Egg - Part 222018-12-23T08:06:04Z<p>SJL: </p>
<hr />
<div>===''On the subject of difficulty...''===<br />
<br />
One posting on the PPE Facebook group which I am going to explore in this article was by Robert Wood, who asked “Does anyone know of a more difficult Surprise Major method than [https://complib.org/method/21124 ''Nimrod Surprise Major'']?” Earlier discussion had concluded that Project Pickled Egg would have one or more difficult methods to give a target. But what makes a method difficult? After all, Bristol is difficult if you only know Cambridge. Does difficult mean the same to everyone? How difficult is difficult enough? <br />
<br />
Nimrod is certainly above-averagely tricky. For starters it is not symmetrical around the half lead as we expect our methods to be, but has rotational symmetry. This definitely makes it harder to learn (nearly twice as hard probably) – many of us can see one place bell being the reverse of another, but seeing one place bell as another one upside down and starting at the half lead would be beyond most! It also has its fair share of the features or ‘motifs’ associated with more difficult methods, such as points, fishtails, Stedman whole turns, wrong hunting and wrong places. However it was not long before Nimrod had been classified by the cognoscenti as “not very difficult really”, and suggestions of greater challenges ensued. <br />
<br />
So what makes a difficult method? When we learn methods, we make it easier for ourselves by recognising structures we have seen and rung before. There is less to learn if you can identify and define chunks such as Yorkshire places, a five-pull dodge, or even a method being the same above the treble as something else you know. The more methods you ring, the more structures become familiar, and the easier learning becomes. The features of London or Bristol that look so difficult the first time you see them are very commonly used, and whereas familiarity doesn’t breed contempt exactly, it does breed comfort. <br />
<br />
The second half of the lead of Nimrod is the same as Bristol, and the first half is largely made up of features found in other known methods, so this was what lead to its dismissal. Chris Adams’ Method Master programme includes a ‘difficulty score’ which he says “is a balance of several factors” and includes the number of changes of direction in its algorithm. Chris says it was only a bit of fun and a rough guide, however just picking a few examples of the scores it gives highlights issues with measuring difficulty:<br />
<br />
Bristol 2016 v London 1084<br />
(I would say Bristol is actually easier)<br />
<br />
Glasgow 2512 v Belfast 4340 <br />
(Glasgow generally considered to be much harder)<br />
<br />
The most difficult methods tend to be the ones that are unlike anything else you know. They have short structures, single places that cause you to hunt differently, isolated points, odd starts. Sam Austin’s band that set itself a goal of ringing quarter peals of all the 100 surprise methods rung in the record all the work peal found the most difficult method to be [https://complib.org/method/20964 ''Sir Isaac Newton'']. Take a look at it and it doesn’t look scary, but the devil is in the detail. <br />
<br />
I think probably the most difficult composition of 23 Spliced ever rung was Peter King’s [https://complib.org/composition/13603 ''composition''] of 23 Treble Bob methods, with names such as Crazy, Loathsome, Diabolical and Killer. I wasn't in it, but know people who were in it whose view on the subject I respect. The longest structure you can have in a TB method is a fishtail so there is not a lot to hang onto and a lot of detail to learn. The fewer internal places in Treble Bob methods (by definition) means more movement, and this composition took it to extremes. <br />
<br />
Different ringers see difficulty slightly differently depending on what they are used to, what they have seen before, or how easily they can mentally convert one structure into another. The relatively few ringers who just learn grids will see patterns that the pure line learners do not, they may see sections of method that are the same as something else that is not readily apparent from the line. This is one of the reasons that awareness of the grid is useful – it can throw up patterns and give clues as to how bits of line fit together. <br />
<br />
Generally though we all sing from the same hymn sheet in terms of what is found difficult, and given we don’t ring alone, the proof of the pudding is in the eating. For less experienced bands, harder methods tend to cause the most problems. Interestingly though for very experienced bands ringing lots of methods in Spliced, the hardest methods are often rung the best and the trips come when people relax in the easy ones!<br />
<br />
Finally, how difficult is difficult enough? I have heard it said that the best bonus scheme for sales people is one that 70% of the sales force will attain. Targets that are too far away are more likely to demotivate than incentivise, but the challenge needs to be enough to spur on the majority. Maybe the same is true here. We could actually come up with some real stinkers of methods to provide a target but they wouldn’t get rung and wouldn’t serve the Project’s purpose. In looking for one or two more methods to join our larder’s ‘spice rack’ alongside Glasgow, we don’t want “Ring of Fire Hot Sauce” (which looked liked a good idea when I bought it), we just need something like Nando’s Medium Peri-Peri. <br />
<br />
Sir Isaac Newton isn’t going to make it, neither are Crazy, Loathsome, Diabolical or Killer. They are not tests anyone will enjoy taking. Maybe we need something a bit like Belfast after all …</div>SJLhttps://wiki.changeringing.co.uk/index.php?title=Project_Pickled_Egg_-_Part_21&diff=2233Project Pickled Egg - Part 212018-12-23T08:03:10Z<p>SJL: </p>
<hr />
<div>===''[https://complib.org/method/16377 Jovium] and [https://complib.org/method/16378 Bolonium]''===<br />
<br />
In this Part I am going to have a look at a method, or even a couple of methods, that I haven’t actually rung myself but which come highly recommended. <br />
<br />
A lot of methods were named after elements in the Periodic Table in peals at Barrow Gurney in the 1980s organised by Tony Cox. Jovium was also first rung there and then. You don’t need to have much Chemistry knowledge to know that Jovium is not actually an element, but perhaps the name is a reference from an alternate fictional world. <br />
<br />
Apart from having musical qualities in a method which is not particularly difficult, Jovium is being included because it is one of the simple classic overworks. Experienced 12 bell ringers would instantly see Jovium as being [https://complib.org/method/22670 Phobos] above, and in fact it is pretty much exactly a contraction of this very popular Maximus method. The key feature of the overwork is that bells start with a fishtail in the next position (when the treble goes from 2nds to 3rds place and a bell makes 4ths), before returning to do a fishtail in the position where they started (when the treble is in 5-6). So 8ths place bell does a fishtail in 5-6, and then goes back up to a fishtail in 7-8. On more bells that this, e.g. in Phobos, after the second of the two fishtails bells just treble bob until the treble gets back to 5-6. <br />
<br />
Jovium has already been recognised by composers of Spliced as a ‘goodun’. It has been used in some of the most musical compositions, and at the quarter peal level, a relatively simple split tenors composition can obtain a deluge of back bell runs. <br />
<br />
Arguments for inclusion:<br />
<br />
• Musical method, particular good for quarter peals and in spliced <br />
<br />
• Classic and nice overwork that reinforces being able to see when the treble is in 5-6<br />
<br />
• New lead end order <br />
<br />
<br />
When I wrote about Deva, I commented that ringing methods by above and below works is something regularly practised in Minor ringing. The same is true for ringing different places at the lead end. Methods with Cambridge and Norwich above in particular tend to be rung with their 2nds or 6ths place variants in compositions of spliced, e.g. Beverley / Berwick, Lightfoot / Rossendale. <br />
<br />
With Treble Dodging Major, we tend to be much more wedded to the lead end that was used when the method was first rung, and I cannot actually think of any examples of two methods that have anything like equal status for their 2nds and 8ths place lead end variants. Some methods just seem to work better as 8ths place methods than 2nds and vice versa, either from the shape or fluidity of the line, or the ease of generating attractive compositions. You can count peals of Primrose Surprise Major (8ths place Cambridge) on the fingers of one hand! <br />
<br />
Cornwall is another good example of this. 2nds place Cornwall is called Falmouth and it’s an F group method. If you compared the blue lines of [https://complib.org/method/17983 Falmouth] and [https://complib.org/method/17984 Cornwall] you might think that Falmouth was much easier. However there have been about 25 peals of Falmouth and a handful of quarters this century – compare that with ‘literally’ zillions of performances of Cornwall. Falmouth is too static for most tastes while Cornwall is dynamic.<br />
<br />
So uniquely for this method I am going to do something new – I am going to present the 8ths place method as well. 8ths place Jovium is called Bolonium (also not quite a real element!). Neither Jovium nor Bolonium are on the face of it ‘better’ than the other. Jovium is Group D (often referred to as ‘Ashtead’ lead end order), which we haven’t had yet, whereas Bolonium is Group J, which is the same as Deva. We have got quite a lot of 2nds place methods already and fewer 8ths, so Bolonium would balance things out. <br />
<br />
I did a quick bit of research on whether ringers who had not seen either method before thought Jovium or Bolonium looked easier to learn and ring. The majority voted for Jovium, which is the answer I expected. Why though, given they are essentially the same? <br />
<br />
We start off ringing 2nds place Surprise Major methods. (Kent Treble Bob is 8ths place of course but I don’t think at the time we learn Kent we have really appreciated that fact.) The first 8ths place Surprise Major method we learn in the Standard 8 is Bristol. The concept of dodges at the lead end becomes ingrained – we expect them and we know how the bobs work. The lead end dodge can also be a good opportunity to get right, to the benefit of the conductor and conducted!<br />
<br />
We are used to learning blue lines from 2nds place bell - so much so that some people even learn 8ths place methods from 2nds place bell. When I first learned Surprise Major methods I thoughts 2nds place ones were easier, whereas now it makes no difference to me. When I first learned Glasgow I started at 2nds place bell, but changed my mind quickly and learned the rest starting from 8ths. <br />
<br />
When rung on higher numbers, this overwork is almost always rung as a 10ths or 12ths place lead end as the methods are considered to flow better, and that is the main argument for Bolonium over Jovium. <br />
<br />
One of the reasons therefore for presenting both Jovium and Bolonium as equivalents is to illustrate this point. This is a method equally good with either lead end. Jovium might be easier. Bolonium is more flowing and may feel nicer to ring. You pays your money and takes your choice.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
1344 Jovium Surprise Major<br />
Composed by Graham A C John<br />
2345678 V I H W<br />
(2463785) – – s<br />
2438765 – – <br />
2 part.<br />
37 5678s (18f,19b), 6 6578s (6f,0b), 44 crus, 104 4-bell runs (51f,53b), 192 5678 combinations (96f,96b), 37 8765s (18f,19b), Backrounds.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
==References==<br />
* [https://bb.ringingworld.co.uk/issues/2018/1217 ''The Ringing World''], No 5614, 30 Nov 2018, pg 1217.</div>SJLhttps://wiki.changeringing.co.uk/index.php?title=Project_Pickled_Egg_-_Part_20&diff=2232Project Pickled Egg - Part 202018-12-23T07:54:05Z<p>SJL: </p>
<hr />
<div>===''[https://complib.org/method/20055 Glasgow] &ndash; The public vote''===<br />
<br />
As Project Pickled Egg gains momentum, one of the most common questions asked is how far it is going to go. Project Pickled Egg is meant to provide a pathway to newcomers to this genre – to show those just setting out on ringing Treble Dodging Major that there is more to life than the Standard 8, breaking the shackles of 50 years or so of indoctrination. <br />
<br />
How far does that pathway need to go? When you move on from the Core Seven and the further methods recommended so far, the scope for fresh challenges broadens quite considerably. PPE starts going beyond being a learning pathway and becomes more of a menu of recommendations for those ringers and bands wanting to discover more variety beyond the standard fare. There isn’t a logical end point – there isn’t a ‘most difficult method’ to aim for. <br />
<br />
Consultation amongst those who have not yet got onto the harder methods has indicated a strong desire for there to be at least one ‘difficult’ target method, something to aim at, something seen as the ultimate challenge. So although I have a couple of more straightforward methods still to come before closing the larder door, there will also be some hot spices for inclusion! <br />
<br />
And so it is with that in mind that the debate returns to Glasgow. Glasgow has probably generated more debate than all of other methods considered for Project Pickled Egg combined. Apparently both Glasgow and Belfast were designed to have the most challenging blue lines of their day. Music was not considered a priority, and few composers worried about music off the front when they were devised. Time has moved on, and we want more from our methods now. A difficult line is not enough. It is not sufficient for our spices just to add heat – we want them to add flavour as well. <br />
<br />
Part 18 left a decision on Glasgow hanging in the air – a stay of execution pending one last round of opinion gathering and a public vote. The first time I posted a Facebook poll on the subject of Glasgow, the majority of those voting wanted it to be included in PPE and hence remain in the larder:<br />
<br />
Include Glasgow in PPE 24<br />
<br />
Don’t included in PPE 13<br />
<br />
Include a better alternative 11<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
The poll was considered flawed by those who thought the third option above was added to the poll late and hence might have affected other answers, and by those who thought the ‘Leave’ voters didn’t really understand the question and hence were wrong. Much discussion then ensued, both before and after the publication of my article on Glasgow. <br />
<br />
Based on more information and more time to think about it, the second referendum was held. The question this time was: <br />
<br />
“Assuming that PPE is going to extend into some more difficult methods, should Glasgow be one of them? If it is rejected, key features of Glasgow can always be found in other options.” <br />
<br />
The result was pretty much the same:<br />
<br />
Yes 31<br />
<br />
No 24<br />
<br />
No strong opinion 10<br />
<br />
<br />
The verdict therefore is that Glasgow goes into the spice rack. <br />
<br />
Many of those expressing a strong view against including Glasgow did so on the basis of the perceived lack of music below the treble. The PPE criteria actually stipulate that the method has to be musical in the plain course. Any band getting to the end of a plain course of Glasgow will have heard several 5678's and corresponding 5432's off the back, a bonus 7568 and 2468, 78654321 and 32456781, and plenty of other 5678 combinations throughout the course. Maybe not the conventional 5678’s off the front, but still a few things to smile at if you are so inclined. There are even some musical quarter peal compositions circulating!<br />
<br />
There were many interesting contributions to the debate on Glasgow, particularly recently when it was looking as though Glasgow was going to make the cut principally due to the lack of anything better. And then there was the contribution from Deputy Chief Evangelist AJB in The Ringing World – the last gasp effort to kick Glasgow into the ditch! This contribution from Rob Lee sums it all up nicely:<br />
<br />
“Firstly, I'm not sure if there is an option that is (a) musical enough for your liking, and (b) similar enough to preserve most of its character. We'd have ended up with a Chequers-style compromise where no one is happy.<br />
<br />
Secondly, I am increasingly leaning towards the mindset of those who state that variety is a more important factor than music in a standard repertoire. I quite enjoy ringing Glasgow, especially in spliced. For me, it falls into the Cambridge/London camp - it has its own unique DNA, so I can live with the lack of music off the front. The same cannot be said of Pudsey, Lincolnshire or Rutland, which are not redeemed by having any notable features, or Belfast, where the same motifs can be retained in more musical methods.”<br />
<br />
As I put this article to bed, David Sullivan posted on ringing chat that one of the young ringers at a youth practice called for Glasgow and it was rung with four teenagers in the band. That has only happened because the rest of the band also knew Glasgow. We still need stepping stones into ringing more difficult methods, and one of those stepping stones is familiarity. If we propose difficult methods that are completely new, they probably won't get rung at all.<br />
<br />
I could suggest a ‘try also’ alongside Glasgow, if only to compensate the Leave voters. In the ultimately fruitless search for a more musical version of Glasgow, a number of methods were put forward and analysed, including Audlie, Sheffield, Bosworth and Quidenham. The most highly rated was [https://complib.org/method/20065 Chenies]. However, by the time bands have got to be able to ring Glasgow, the chances of them wanting to ring something that is like Glasgow, but slightly more musical, is actually pretty slim. Such a band will be looking more widely for fresh challenges. So I will just leave Chenies as the method that almost replaced Glasgow in Project Pickled Egg. <br />
<br />
<br />
==References==<br />
* [https://bb.ringingworld.co.uk/issues/2018/1130 ''The Ringing World''], No 5613, 23 Nov 2018, pg 1130.</div>SJLhttps://wiki.changeringing.co.uk/index.php?title=Project_Pickled_Egg_-_Part_19&diff=2231Project Pickled Egg - Part 192018-12-23T07:44:45Z<p>SJL: </p>
<hr />
<div>===[https://complib.org/method/19756 ''Belfast Surprise Major'']===<br />
<br />
In Part 18, I left Glasgow hanging in the air, unable to come to a conclusion without doing some more market research. in this article I am looking at Belfast and being more decisive. <br />
<br />
Belfast was first pealed 20 years after Glasgow, in 1967, and like Glasgow it was devised to be about the most challenging blue line of its day. In the absence of challengers, these two have cemented themselves as the only two regularly rung difficult methods beyond the ‘Standard 8’. <br />
<br />
Belfast is difficult in a very different way to Glasgow. At first glance it might look to be the harder of the two - it certainly has lots of points and spikey bits while Glasgow has quite a few parts that look like plain hunting! Belfast is an all action, breathless affair, particularly 5ths and 6ths place bells. However I will now assert that Belfast is actually the easier of the two.<br />
<br />
Firstly Belfast is an MX method, i.e. an 8ths place method in which 8ths place bell becomes 6ths. The place bells therefore come up in the order 8 6 4 2 3 5 7. When you call a Bob in an MX method, the bells in 5ths place and above dodge at the lead end and repeat the lead they have just rung. This has several practical advantages. A lead that you have just rung is easier to ring than a different one, it is easier for the conductor to see four of the bells doing the same thing again (repetition generally helps ringers), and if there are roll-ups in the lead that is repeated you will get them again, so it is good for certain kinds of musical composition.<br />
<br />
In terms of learning the method, calling a Bob every lead gives a three-lead touch that can be learned and rung for practice, with up to four people only having to learn one lead. The other three just need to ring a four-bell frontwork. It is a good and exciting challenge for a practice, and Glasgow does not offer anything similar. Bobs in Belfast make things easier for everyone, while Bobs in Glasgow are a recipe for disaster. Furthermore, as you ring Belfast you find yourself working with course bells and the bells around you quite a lot, where Glasgow feels a lot more random. <br />
<br />
There is something interesting in the peal and quarter peal statistics for the two methods. Peals of Glasgow outnumber peals of Belfast almost two to one. For quarter peals the gap is much closer, although there are more quarters of Glasgow. I think this tells us something about the two that supports my earlier assertion. At this level peal ringers are ringing Glasgow for the challenge whereas Belfast doesn’t offer nearly as much attraction. The narrower gap with quarters may indicate a lower success rate for quarters of Glasgow as it is much harder to conduct, and quarter peal bands are likely to be weaker. Certainly one band I rang with for many years was able to ring a quarter peal of Belfast but we gave up on Glasgow. <br />
<br />
In Part 18 I tried to explain how the above work in Glasgow is a useful one which only really becomes apparent on higher numbers. The same is not true of Belfast, where the structure of the backwork manifest itself more clearly in the major version. In Belfast all bells from 5ths place upwards start with a point in the immediately adjacent place, then go to a fishtail in the next position, followed by treble bob hunting. So 6ths place bell does point 5, then up to fishtail in 78 when the treble is dodging in 34, before setting off to treble bob down (meeting the treble in 56). 10ths place Belfast above on higher numbers starts with a point 9, then up to fishtail in 11-12, before treble bobbing down. Four of the seven place bells in Belfast Major essentially start by doing the same thing – near point, fishtail, dodge (unless the treble is passed). <br />
<br />
Although this ‘formulaic’ backwork is clearer on 8 than that of Glasgow, it isn’t actually very popular on higher numbers and so it is not a reason in itself for learning Belfast. There isn’t a method regularly rung on 10 or above with Belfast above work. Nevertheless, if you can appreciate the complete structure, and how it works in relation to where the treble is, it will stand you in good stead for similar things. <br />
<br />
So what of the work below the treble? Well there are some good features here which commonly appear in other hard methods. Of particular interest are the cascading ‘big dodges’ over the half lead – so where 6ths place bell does point 4, point 6, point 3, point 5, with the transition between the point 6 and point 3 being across the half lead. That is quite a common feature in trickier methods. The big dodges have the points at the same stroke. The structure has lots of places where bells work together in helpful ways. All this doesn’t actually generate musical runs off the front, though – this is not a Bristol or a Cornwall. <br />
<br />
So, repeating a couple of sentences from the article on Glasgow, there is no doubt Belfast presents a significant challenge the first time you see it or ring it. But is it any good? Is it worth the effort? Does it make it into the Project Pickled Egg larder?<br />
<br />
Again I am going to assess against the original PPE tests.<br />
<br />
1. It should be musical in the plain course<br />
<br />
Nothing to write home about <br />
<br />
2. It should introduce a useful new skill, technique or concept, and hence be progressive<br />
<br />
Yes it does – formulaic backwork, the cascading big dodges<br />
<br />
3. It should not have limiting falseness<br />
<br />
I am not an expert but I am told this is not ideal<br />
<br />
4. Some familiarity is helpful<br />
<br />
OK on this one - there are lots of ringers who know Belfast which makes it quite accessible for the learner. <br />
<br />
Like Glasgow, none of that is compelling. On the PPE Facebook discussion group there was similar debate on the merits of Belfast which I eventually summarised as follows:<br />
<br />
Arguments in favour of inclusion in PPE:<br />
<br />
• Formulaic above work (it is good to get used to learning different formulaic above works)<br />
<br />
• It is included in some well known compositions (Hortons 4 particularly)<br />
<br />
• Being an MX method (like Bristol), it can be rung as a three-lead touch, which is useful in a practice environment<br />
<br />
• Hugely structured to help in understanding how bells work together even in difficult methods<br />
<br />
• Concept of pairs of points at the same stroke, crossing over the half lead, is very useful and not seen before<br />
<br />
<br />
Arguments against inclusion:<br />
<br />
• It is nothing special musically<br />
<br />
• The structure above the treble is not particularly popular<br />
<br />
• Falseness gets in the way of exploiting musical potential<br />
<br />
• There are better alternatives for introducing the same concepts<br />
<br />
<br />
So it’s not looking good for Belfast. Apart from its inclusion in some well known compositions, and its familiarity, none of the other arguments in Belfast's favour are unique to Belfast. If it is decided that Project Pickled Egg needs to go as far as methods with this degree of difficulty, Belfast doesn’t make the shortlist. <br />
<br />
<br />
Note: Part 23 did in fact introduce [https://complib.org/method/25093 ''Mareham''] which includes many of the teaching points from Belfast but in a method more fitting to the Project. <br />
<br />
<br />
==References==<br />
* [https://bb.ringingworld.co.uk/issues/2018/1078 ''The Ringing World''], No 5611, 9 Nov 2018, pg 1078.</div>SJLhttps://wiki.changeringing.co.uk/index.php?title=Project_Pickled_Egg_-_Part_19&diff=2230Project Pickled Egg - Part 192018-12-23T07:42:16Z<p>SJL: </p>
<hr />
<div>===[https://complib.org/method/19756 ''Belfast Surprise Major'']===<br />
<br />
Last week I left Glasgow hanging in the air, unable to come to a conclusion without doing some more market research. This week I am looking at Belfast and being more decisive. <br />
<br />
Belfast was first pealed 20 years after Glasgow, in 1967, and like Glasgow it was devised to be about the most challenging blue line of its day. In the absence of challengers, these two have cemented themselves as the only two regularly rung difficult methods beyond the ‘Standard 8’. <br />
<br />
Belfast is difficult in a very different way to Glasgow. At first glance it might look to be the harder of the two - it certainly has lots of points and spikey bits while Glasgow has quite a few parts that look like plain hunting! Belfast is an all action, breathless affair, particularly 5ths and 6ths place bells. However I will now assert that Belfast is actually the easier of the two.<br />
<br />
Firstly Belfast is an MX method, i.e. an 8ths place method in which 8ths place bell becomes 6ths. The place bells therefore come up in the order 8 6 4 2 3 5 7. When you call a Bob in an MX method, the bells in 5ths place and above dodge at the lead end and repeat the lead they have just rung. This has several practical advantages. A lead that you have just rung is easier to ring than a different one, it is easier for the conductor to see four of the bells doing the same thing again (repetition generally helps ringers), and if there are roll-ups in the lead that is repeated you will get them again, so it is good for certain kinds of musical composition.<br />
<br />
In terms of learning the method, calling a Bob every lead gives a three-lead touch that can be learned and rung for practice, with up to four people only having to learn one lead. The other three just need to ring a four-bell frontwork. It is a good and exciting challenge for a practice, and Glasgow does not offer anything similar. Bobs in Belfast make things easier for everyone, while Bobs in Glasgow are a recipe for disaster. Furthermore, as you ring Belfast you find yourself working with course bells and the bells around you quite a lot, where Glasgow feels a lot more random. <br />
<br />
There is something interesting in the peal and quarter peal statistics for the two methods. Peals of Glasgow outnumber peals of Belfast almost two to one. For quarter peals the gap is much closer, although there are more quarters of Glasgow. I think this tells us something about the two that supports my earlier assertion. At this level peal ringers are ringing Glasgow for the challenge whereas Belfast doesn’t offer nearly as much attraction. The narrower gap with quarters may indicate a lower success rate for quarters of Glasgow as it is much harder to conduct, and quarter peal bands are likely to be weaker. Certainly one band I rang with for many years was able to ring a quarter peal of Belfast but we gave up on Glasgow. <br />
<br />
Last week I tried to explain how the above work in Glasgow is a useful one which only really becomes apparent on higher numbers. The same is not true of Belfast, where the structure of the backwork manifest itself more clearly in the major version. In Belfast all bells from 5ths place upwards start with a point in the immediately adjacent place, then go to a fishtail in the next position, followed by treble bob hunting. So 6ths place bell does point 5, then up to fishtail in 78 when the treble is dodging in 34, before setting off to treble bob down (meeting the treble in 56). 10ths place Belfast above on higher numbers starts with a point 9, then up to fishtail in 11-12, before treble bobbing down. Four of the seven place bells in Belfast Major essentially start by doing the same thing – near point, fishtail, dodge (unless the treble is passed). <br />
<br />
Although this ‘formulaic’ backwork is clearer on 8 than that of Glasgow, it isn’t actually very popular on higher numbers and so it is not a reason in itself for learning Belfast. There isn’t a method regularly rung on 10 or above with Belfast above work. Nevertheless, if you can appreciate the complete structure, and how it works in relation to where the treble is, it will stand you in good stead for similar things. <br />
<br />
So what of the work below the treble? Well there are some good features here which commonly appear in other hard methods. Of particular interest are the cascading ‘big dodges’ over the half lead – so where 6ths place bell does point 4, point 6, point 3, point 5, with the transition between the point 6 and point 3 being across the half lead. That is quite a common feature in trickier methods. The big dodges have the points at the same stroke. The structure has lots of places where bells work together in helpful ways. All this doesn’t actually generate musical runs off the front, though – this is not a Bristol or a Cornwall. <br />
<br />
So, repeating a couple of sentences from last week, there is no doubt Belfast presents a significant challenge the first time you see it or ring it. But is it any good? Is it worth the effort? Does it make it into the Project Pickled Egg larder?<br />
<br />
Again I am going to assess against the original PPE tests.<br />
<br />
1. It should be musical in the plain course<br />
<br />
Nothing to write home about <br />
<br />
2. It should introduce a useful new skill, technique or concept, and hence be progressive<br />
<br />
Yes it does – formulaic backwork, the cascading big dodges<br />
<br />
3. It should not have limiting falseness<br />
<br />
I am not an expert but I am told this is not ideal<br />
<br />
4. Some familiarity is helpful<br />
<br />
OK on this one - there are lots of ringers who know Belfast which makes it quite accessible for the learner. <br />
<br />
Like Glasgow, none of that is compelling. On the PPE Facebook discussion group, which now has 380 members, there was similar debate on the merits of Belfast which I eventually summarised as follows:<br />
<br />
Arguments in favour of inclusion in PPE:<br />
<br />
• Formulaic above work (it is good to get used to learning different formulaic above works)<br />
<br />
• It is included in some well known compositions (Hortons 4 particularly)<br />
<br />
• Being an MX method (like Bristol), it can be rung as a three-lead touch, which is useful in a practice environment<br />
<br />
• Hugely structured to help in understanding how bells work together even in difficult methods<br />
<br />
• Concept of pairs of points at the same stroke, crossing over the half lead, is very useful and not seen before<br />
<br />
<br />
Arguments against inclusion:<br />
<br />
• It is nothing special musically<br />
<br />
• The structure above the treble is not particularly popular<br />
<br />
• Falseness gets in the way of exploiting musical potential<br />
<br />
• There are better alternatives for introducing the same concepts<br />
<br />
<br />
So it’s not looking good for Belfast. Apart from its inclusion in some well known compositions, and its familiarity, none of the other arguments in Belfast's favour are unique to Belfast. If it is decided that Project Pickled Egg needs to go as far as methods with this degree of difficulty – and I will look at that next week –Belfast doesn’t make the shortlist. <br />
<br />
<br />
Note: Part 23 did in fact introduce [https://complib.org/method/25093 ''Mareham''] which includes many of the teaching points from Belfast but in a method more fitting to the Project. <br />
<br />
<br />
==References==<br />
* [https://bb.ringingworld.co.uk/issues/2018/1078 ''The Ringing World''], No 5611, 9 Nov 2018, pg 1078.</div>SJLhttps://wiki.changeringing.co.uk/index.php?title=Project_Pickled_Egg_-_Part_22&diff=2229Project Pickled Egg - Part 222018-12-22T18:31:22Z<p>SJL: </p>
<hr />
<div>One posting on the PPE Facebook group which I am going to explore in this article was by Robert Wood, who asked “Does anyone know of a more difficult Surprise Major method than [https://complib.org/method/21124 ''Nimrod Surprise Major'']?” Earlier discussion had concluded that Project Pickled Egg would have one or more difficult methods to give a target. But what makes a method difficult? After all, Bristol is difficult if you only know Cambridge. Does difficult mean the same to everyone? How difficult is difficult enough? <br />
<br />
Nimrod is certainly above-averagely tricky. For starters it is not symmetrical around the half lead as we expect our methods to be, but has rotational symmetry. This definitely makes it harder to learn (nearly twice as hard probably) – many of us can see one place bell being the reverse of another, but seeing one place bell as another one upside down and starting at the half lead would be beyond most! It also has its fair share of the features or ‘motifs’ associated with more difficult methods, such as points, fishtails, Stedman whole turns, wrong hunting and wrong places. However it was not long before Nimrod had been classified by the cognoscenti as “not very difficult really”, and suggestions of greater challenges ensued. <br />
<br />
So what makes a difficult method? When we learn methods, we make it easier for ourselves by recognising structures we have seen and rung before. There is less to learn if you can identify and define chunks such as Yorkshire places, a five-pull dodge, or even a method being the same above the treble as something else you know. The more methods you ring, the more structures become familiar, and the easier learning becomes. The features of London or Bristol that look so difficult the first time you see them are very commonly used, and whereas familiarity doesn’t breed contempt exactly, it does breed comfort. <br />
<br />
The second half of the lead of Nimrod is the same as Bristol, and the first half is largely made up of features found in other known methods, so this was what lead to its dismissal. Chris Adams’ Method Master programme includes a ‘difficulty score’ which he says “is a balance of several factors” and includes the number of changes of direction in its algorithm. Chris says it was only a bit of fun and a rough guide, however just picking a few examples of the scores it gives highlights issues with measuring difficulty:<br />
<br />
Bristol 2016 v London 1084<br />
(I would say Bristol is actually easier)<br />
<br />
Glasgow 2512 v Belfast 4340 <br />
(Glasgow generally considered to be much harder)<br />
<br />
The most difficult methods tend to be the ones that are unlike anything else you know. They have short structures, single places that cause you to hunt differently, isolated points, odd starts. Sam Austin’s band that set itself a goal of ringing quarter peals of all the 100 surprise methods rung in the record all the work peal found the most difficult method to be [https://complib.org/method/20964 ''Sir Isaac Newton'']. Take a look at it and it doesn’t look scary, but the devil is in the detail. <br />
<br />
I think probably the most difficult composition of 23 Spliced ever rung was Peter King’s [https://complib.org/composition/13603 ''composition''] of 23 Treble Bob methods, with names such as Crazy, Loathsome, Diabolical and Killer. I wasn't in it, but know people who were in it whose view on the subject I respect. The longest structure you can have in a TB method is a fishtail so there is not a lot to hang onto and a lot of detail to learn. The fewer internal places in Treble Bob methods (by definition) means more movement, and this composition took it to extremes. <br />
<br />
Different ringers see difficulty slightly differently depending on what they are used to, what they have seen before, or how easily they can mentally convert one structure into another. The relatively few ringers who just learn grids will see patterns that the pure line learners do not, they may see sections of method that are the same as something else that is not readily apparent from the line. This is one of the reasons that awareness of the grid is useful – it can throw up patterns and give clues as to how bits of line fit together. <br />
<br />
Generally though we all sing from the same hymn sheet in terms of what is found difficult, and given we don’t ring alone, the proof of the pudding is in the eating. For less experienced bands, harder methods tend to cause the most problems. Interestingly though for very experienced bands ringing lots of methods in Spliced, the hardest methods are often rung the best and the trips come when people relax in the easy ones!<br />
<br />
Finally, how difficult is difficult enough? I have heard it said that the best bonus scheme for sales people is one that 70% of the sales force will attain. Targets that are too far away are more likely to demotivate than incentivise, but the challenge needs to be enough to spur on the majority. Maybe the same is true here. We could actually come up with some real stinkers of methods to provide a target but they wouldn’t get rung and wouldn’t serve the Project’s purpose. In looking for one or two more methods to join our larder’s ‘spice rack’ alongside Glasgow, we don’t want “Ring of Fire Hot Sauce” (which looked liked a good idea when I bought it), we just need something like Nando’s Medium Peri-Peri. <br />
<br />
Sir Isaac Newton isn’t going to make it, neither are Crazy, Loathsome, Diabolical or Killer. They are not tests anyone will enjoy taking. Maybe we need something a bit like Belfast after all …</div>SJLhttps://wiki.changeringing.co.uk/index.php?title=Project_Pickled_Egg_-_Part_22&diff=2228Project Pickled Egg - Part 222018-12-22T18:29:58Z<p>SJL: </p>
<hr />
<div>One posting on the PPE Facebook group which I am going to explore in this article was by Robert Wood, who asked “Does anyone know of a more difficult Surprise Major method than [https://complib.org/method/21124 ''Nimrod Surprise Major'']?” Earlier discussion had concluded that Project Pickled Egg would have one or more difficult methods to give a target. But what makes a method difficult? After all, Bristol is difficult if you only know Cambridge. Does difficult mean the same to everyone? How difficult is difficult enough? <br />
<br />
Nimrod is certainly above-averagely tricky. For starters it is not symmetrical around the half lead as we expect our methods to be, but has rotational symmetry. This definitely makes it harder to learn (nearly twice as hard probably) – many of us can see one place bell being the reverse of another, but seeing one place bell as another one upside down and starting at the half lead would be beyond most! It also has its fair share of the features or ‘motifs’ associated with more difficult methods, such as points, fishtails, Stedman whole turns, wrong hunting and wrong places. However it was not long before Nimrod had been classified by the cognoscenti as “not very difficult really”, and suggestions of greater challenges ensued. <br />
<br />
So what makes a difficult method? When we learn methods, we make it easier for ourselves by recognising structures we have seen and rung before. There is less to learn if you can identify and define chunks such as Yorkshire places, a five-pull dodge, or even a method being the same above the treble as something else you know. The more methods you ring, the more structures become familiar, and the easier learning becomes. The features of London or Bristol that look so difficult the first time you see them are very commonly used, and whereas familiarity doesn’t breed contempt exactly, it does breed comfort. <br />
<br />
The second half of the lead of Nimrod is the same as Bristol, and the first half is largely made up of features found in other known methods, so this was what lead to its dismissal. Chris Adams’ Method Master programme includes a ‘difficulty score’ which he says “is a balance of several factors” and includes the number of changes of direction in its algorithm. Chris says it was only a bit of fun and a rough guide, however just picking a few examples of the scores it gives highlights issues with measuring difficulty:<br />
<br />
Bristol 2016 v London 1084<br />
(I would say Bristol is actually easier)<br />
<br />
Glasgow 2512 v Belfast 4340 <br />
(Glasgow generally considered to be much harder)<br />
<br />
The most difficult methods tend to be the ones that are unlike anything else you know. They have short structures, single places that cause you to hunt differently, isolated points, odd starts. Sam Austin’s band that set itself a goal of ringing quarter peals of all the 100 surprise methods rung in the record all the work peal found the most difficult method to be [https://complib.org/method/20964 ''Sir Isaac Newton'']. Take a look at it and it doesn’t look scary, but the devil is in the detail. <br />
<br />
The most difficult composition of 23 Spliced ever rung was Peter King’s [https://complib.org/composition/13603 ''composition''] of 23 Treble Bob methods, with names such as Crazy, Loathsome, Diabolical and Killer. The longest structure you can have in a TB method is a fishtail so there is not a lot to hang onto and a lot of detail to learn. The fewer internal places in Treble Bob methods (by definition) means more movement, and this composition took it to extremes. <br />
<br />
Different ringers see difficulty slightly differently depending on what they are used to, what they have seen before, or how easily they can mentally convert one structure into another. The relatively few ringers who just learn grids will see patterns that the pure line learners do not, they may see sections of method that are the same as something else that is not readily apparent from the line. This is one of the reasons that awareness of the grid is useful – it can throw up patterns and give clues as to how bits of line fit together. <br />
<br />
Generally though we all sing from the same hymn sheet in terms of what is found difficult, and given we don’t ring alone, the proof of the pudding is in the eating. For less experienced bands, harder methods tend to cause the most problems. Interestingly though for very experienced bands ringing lots of methods in Spliced, the hardest methods are often rung the best and the trips come when people relax in the easy ones!<br />
<br />
Finally, how difficult is difficult enough? I have heard it said that the best bonus scheme for sales people is one that 70% of the sales force will attain. Targets that are too far away are more likely to demotivate than incentivise, but the challenge needs to be enough to spur on the majority. Maybe the same is true here. We could actually come up with some real stinkers of methods to provide a target but they wouldn’t get rung and wouldn’t serve the Project’s purpose. In looking for one or two more methods to join our larder’s ‘spice rack’ alongside Glasgow, we don’t want “Ring of Fire Hot Sauce” (which looked liked a good idea when I bought it), we just need something like Nando’s Medium Peri-Peri. <br />
<br />
Sir Isaac Newton isn’t going to make it, neither are Crazy, Loathsome, Diabolical or Killer. They are not tests anyone will enjoy taking. Maybe we need something a bit like Belfast after all …</div>SJLhttps://wiki.changeringing.co.uk/index.php?title=Project_Pickled_Egg_-_Part_22&diff=2227Project Pickled Egg - Part 222018-12-22T18:29:43Z<p>SJL: Created page with "One posting on the PPE Facebook group which I am going to explore in this article was by Robert Wood, who asked “Does anyone know of a more difficult Surprise Major method t..."</p>
<hr />
<div>One posting on the PPE Facebook group which I am going to explore in this article was by Robert Wood, who asked “Does anyone know of a more difficult Surprise Major method than [https://complib.org/method/21124 ''Nimrod Surprise Major'']?” Earlier discussion had concluded that Project Pickled Egg would have one or more difficult methods to give a target. But what makes a method difficult? After all, Bristol is difficult if you only know Cambridge. Does difficult mean the same to everyone? How difficult is difficult enough? <br />
<br />
Nimrod is certainly above-averagely tricky. For starters it is not symmetrical around the half lead as we expect our methods to be, but has rotational symmetry. This definitely makes it harder to learn (nearly twice as hard probably) – many of us can see one place bell being the reverse of another, but seeing one place bell as another one upside down and starting at the half lead would be beyond most! It also has its fair share of the features or ‘motifs’ associated with more difficult methods, such as points, fishtails, Stedman whole turns, wrong hunting and wrong places. However it was not long before Nimrod had been classified by the cognoscenti as “not very difficult really”, and suggestions of greater challenges ensued. <br />
<br />
So what makes a difficult method? When we learn methods, we make it easier for ourselves by recognising structures we have seen and rung before. There is less to learn if you can identify and define chunks such as Yorkshire places, a five-pull dodge, or even a method being the same above the treble as something else you know. The more methods you ring, the more structures become familiar, and the easier learning becomes. The features of London or Bristol that look so difficult the first time you see them are very commonly used, and whereas familiarity doesn’t breed contempt exactly, it does breed comfort. <br />
<br />
The second half of the lead of Nimrod is the same as Bristol, and the first half is largely made up of features found in other known methods, so this was what lead to its dismissal. Chris Adams’ Method Master programme includes a ‘difficulty score’ which he says “is a balance of several factors” and includes the number of changes of direction in its algorithm. Chris says it was only a bit of fun and a rough guide, however just picking a few examples of the scores it gives highlights issues with measuring difficulty:<br />
<br />
Bristol 2016 v London 1084<br />
(I would say Bristol is actually easier)<br />
Glasgow 2512 v Belfast 4340 <br />
(Glasgow generally considered to be much harder)<br />
<br />
The most difficult methods tend to be the ones that are unlike anything else you know. They have short structures, single places that cause you to hunt differently, isolated points, odd starts. Sam Austin’s band that set itself a goal of ringing quarter peals of all the 100 surprise methods rung in the record all the work peal found the most difficult method to be [https://complib.org/method/20964 ''Sir Isaac Newton'']. Take a look at it and it doesn’t look scary, but the devil is in the detail. <br />
<br />
The most difficult composition of 23 Spliced ever rung was Peter King’s [https://complib.org/composition/13603 ''composition''] of 23 Treble Bob methods, with names such as Crazy, Loathsome, Diabolical and Killer. The longest structure you can have in a TB method is a fishtail so there is not a lot to hang onto and a lot of detail to learn. The fewer internal places in Treble Bob methods (by definition) means more movement, and this composition took it to extremes. <br />
<br />
Different ringers see difficulty slightly differently depending on what they are used to, what they have seen before, or how easily they can mentally convert one structure into another. The relatively few ringers who just learn grids will see patterns that the pure line learners do not, they may see sections of method that are the same as something else that is not readily apparent from the line. This is one of the reasons that awareness of the grid is useful – it can throw up patterns and give clues as to how bits of line fit together. <br />
<br />
Generally though we all sing from the same hymn sheet in terms of what is found difficult, and given we don’t ring alone, the proof of the pudding is in the eating. For less experienced bands, harder methods tend to cause the most problems. Interestingly though for very experienced bands ringing lots of methods in Spliced, the hardest methods are often rung the best and the trips come when people relax in the easy ones!<br />
<br />
Finally, how difficult is difficult enough? I have heard it said that the best bonus scheme for sales people is one that 70% of the sales force will attain. Targets that are too far away are more likely to demotivate than incentivise, but the challenge needs to be enough to spur on the majority. Maybe the same is true here. We could actually come up with some real stinkers of methods to provide a target but they wouldn’t get rung and wouldn’t serve the Project’s purpose. In looking for one or two more methods to join our larder’s ‘spice rack’ alongside Glasgow, we don’t want “Ring of Fire Hot Sauce” (which looked liked a good idea when I bought it), we just need something like Nando’s Medium Peri-Peri. <br />
<br />
Sir Isaac Newton isn’t going to make it, neither are Crazy, Loathsome, Diabolical or Killer. They are not tests anyone will enjoy taking. Maybe we need something a bit like Belfast after all …</div>SJLhttps://wiki.changeringing.co.uk/index.php?title=Project_Pickled_Egg&diff=2226Project Pickled Egg2018-12-22T18:09:54Z<p>SJL: </p>
<hr />
<div>Project Pickled Egg aims to develop properly a new set of Core Surprise Major methods to replace the Standard 8, with the degree of thought, consultation and follow-up resource that could have traction. It was created by Simon Linford and is explored through a series of articles in the Ringing World that are repeated here.<br />
<br />
* [[Project Pickled Egg - Part 1]] - Background<br />
* [[Project Pickled Egg - Part 2]] - Where did the Standard 8 come from?<br />
* [[Project Pickled Egg - Part 3]] - Core Principles<br />
* [[Project Pickled Egg - Part 4]] - Cambridge<br />
* [[Project Pickled Egg - Part 5]] - Yorkshire<br />
* [[Project Pickled Egg - Part 6]] - Cornwall<br />
* [[Project Pickled Egg - Part 7]] - Superlative<br />
* [[Project Pickled Egg - Part 8]] - Dustbin Week!<br />
* [[Project Pickled Egg - Part 9]] - Bristol<br />
* [[Project Pickled Egg - Part 10]] - Lessness<br />
* [[Project Pickled Egg - Part 11]] - London<br />
* [[Project Pickled Egg - Part 12]] - The "Core Seven"<br />
* [[Project Pickled Egg - Part 13]] - A little bit of spliced<br />
* [[Project Pickled Egg - Part 14]] - Deva<br />
* [[Project Pickled Egg - Part 15]] - Lancashire<br />
* [[Project Pickled Egg - Part 16]] - Kenninghall<br />
* [[Project Pickled Egg - Part 17]] - Cooktown Orchid<br />
* [[Project Pickled Egg - Part 18]] - Glasgow<br />
* [[Project Pickled Egg - Part 19]] - Belfast<br />
* [[Project Pickled Egg - Part 20]] - Glasgow &ndash; The public vote<br />
* [[Project Pickled Egg - Part 21]] - Jovium and Bolonium<br />
* [[Project Pickled Egg - Part 22]] - On the subject of difficulty<br />
* [[Project Pickled Egg - Part 23]] - Mareham<br />
* [[Project Pickled Egg - Part 24]] - Rook and Gaskill</div>SJLhttps://wiki.changeringing.co.uk/index.php?title=Project_Pickled_Egg_-_Part_18&diff=2212Project Pickled Egg - Part 182018-11-11T18:04:41Z<p>SJL: </p>
<hr />
<div>===[https://complib.org/method/20055 ''Glasgow Surprise Major'']===<br />
<br />
Over the next three weeks I am going to consider two methods which are often uttered in the same breath, a breath which may instill fear or wonder in equal measure. They are two methods that are often considered to be the next two after the ‘Standard 8’. I am of course talking about Glasgow and Belfast. <br />
<br />
Although they are often linked, and I expect there are more compositions of spliced that have both in rather than one, they are very different animals. For the purpose of Project Pickled Egg they need to be considered separately as there is no good argument for treating them as a pair. <br />
<br />
Glasgow is not a ‘middle aged’ method – first pealed in 1947 and certainly very challenging then. It went on to be included in Norman Smith’s 23 Spliced as one of the more difficult methods in the composition, and then it was teamed up with Bristol, London and Belfast in Roddy Horton’s all the work one part composition ‘Horton’s 4’, which has become one of the classic compositions, a target and badge of honour for many a band and conductor. <br />
<br />
Glasgow was the first difficult method I learned, as it was introduced into my local association probably in the early 1980s. Learning it represented my breakthrough into the upper echelons of the Society, getting to ring in the ‘top touch’, the touch featuring all those ringers who I aspired to be like. And it was like nothing I had seen before. It has some bits of work that are like London, points which seemed to come in weird places for instance point fifths and back from the front, odd places like the 5ths after passing the treble on the way out, dodges in 45 (!) rather than the conventional 34 or 56, and bobs which were a recipe for disaster. <br />
<br />
That’s the key feature of Glasgow when you first see it – the lack of familiarity with what has gone before. You are clutching at straws trying to piece it together from things you already know, even if you had been following the Project Pickled Egg path and had a solid grounding in methods of different types. Although it has Plain Bob lead end order, defined as Group G, it doesn’t really feel like that because it is an 8ths place method, and the 45 dodge at the lead that causes you to become 4ths or 5ths place bell may have you thinking you are going in the wrong direction. <br />
<br />
The above work is actually one which is used a lot in methods on higher numbers. It is one of the classics. Unfortunately, the basic structure (more usually referred to as Strathclyde above from the Maximus variant) doesn’t actually become obvious when you only ring it on 8! The structure features a fishtail immediately, e.g. 7ths place bell does 878 and then goes down, 8ths place bell does 787 and goes out, and then the bells above plain hunt wrong until the treble is in 56, when they do another fishtail, then set off in the right direction again. This formula is interrupted by any bell that meets the treble before the treble gets to 56. Unfortunately in Glasgow Major, no bells get to do the second of the two fishtails because there isn’t room above the treble. The pure structure is not apparent until you ring the Royal extension (Clyde) or the Maximus extension (Strathclyde). <br />
<br />
So there is no doubt Glasgow presents a significant challenge the first time you see it or ring it. But is it any good? Is it worth the effort? Does it make it into the Project Pickled Egg larder?<br />
<br />
Firstly I am going to spell out the original PPE tests, as it has been a while, and then consider Glasgow against them.<br />
<br />
1. It should be musical in the plain course<br />
Well it isn’t particularly, although it provides variety. Not a shocker but nothing special. A band ringing a quarter peal of this for the first time is so worried and is concentrating so hard that any music in the composition probably won’t get noticed! I don’t think any band tries to ring a musical composition of Glasgow.<br />
<br />
2. It should introduce a useful new skill, technique or concept, and hence be progressive – it does introduce some new skills, but we can debate how useful those skills are.<br />
<br />
3. It should not have limiting falseness<br />
Not a reason for excluding it<br />
<br />
4. Some familiarity is helpful<br />
OK on this one - there are lots of ringers who know Glasgow which makes it quite accessible for the learner. So if you are just looking to include a difficult method, one which quite a lot of ringers know already aids adoption<br />
<br />
None of that is compelling so we need to consider the bigger picture. <br />
<br />
Experienced ringers point to the 45 half lead dodge as an important feature that is worth getting used to. Indeed, doing a half lead dodge that is not in 12, 34 or 56 is different, and does happen in more difficult methods. However, when I first learned Glasgow I had no idea that the dodge in 45 was at the half lead, and I don’t know if it would have helped me or not. The 45 dodge at the lead end was more obvious, but that isn’t actually a very common feature in other methods. What it does introduce that is new is the concept of a ‘normal’ 4ths place bob causing bells to do things that seem very different.<br />
<br />
For those who have mastered ringing the methods, Glasgow becomes a very interesting method in Spliced. It adds variety, difficulty, interest, spice, risk, a useful lead order, different musical possibilities. Composers like it, and some say that although it isn’t particularly musical in its own right, it can help bring out the best in a composition. <br />
<br />
In summary, the arguments in favour of included Glasgow in PPE as a method recommended to be learned:<br />
<br />
It is a useful above work (though not obviously expressed on 8)<br />
<br />
• Group G - not previously encountered<br />
<br />
• Unusual blue line with many new features<br />
<br />
• 4-5 dodge at the half lead is a key feature and very worth knowing<br />
<br />
• The bobs demonstrate that not all 4ths place bobs are created equal<br />
<br />
• Works well in spliced<br />
<br />
• Included in Smiths 23 and Hortons 4 compositions (and many other more difficult comps)<br />
<br />
• Gateway to more difficult methods<br />
<br />
Arguments against<br />
<br />
• Does not meet the original PPE criteria particularly in not being a musical plain course<br />
<br />
• Lack of music off the front<br />
<br />
• There may be better options that achieve the same, but without the familiarity<br />
<br />
Finally, Glasgow carries emotional and historic attachment which could be considered an argument for including it. <br />
<br />
Although there are more arguments for than against, Glasgow is still only really getting included because the new features it introduces, and familiarity of the method, means it is an accessible way of introducing something very different and difficult. Like Cambridge and London, it is not getting in on merit. That leads one to ask whether there is a method that fulfils the same criteria, but in the extensive discussion group debate there were no compelling candidates. <br />
<br />
Another debate amongst those on the PPE discussion group was whether the list of methods needs to go this far. Do we need aspirational ‘marquee methods’ that might be seen as the end goal of the Project, or should the Project remain as a set of foundations after which followers will be able to ring and learn almost anything, including Glasgow (and Belfast). If it is only about finding a difficult method to finish with there would definitely be better candidates than Glasgow. <br />
<br />
After much debate in the Facebook discussion group, I launched a poll – a sort of ‘In / Out’ referendum which has proved such a good way of making critical decisions. Unfortunately after a few people had voted, I introduced a third choice – ‘something like Glasgow but not Glasgow’ – and muddied the water. A new referendum was suggested!<br />
<br />
I am not going to conclude on Glasgow yet. Next week I am going to look at Belfast, and in the meantime, let this smoulder and then post the poll again. It will be the people’s vote.</div>SJLhttps://wiki.changeringing.co.uk/index.php?title=Project_Pickled_Egg_-_Part_16&diff=2211Project Pickled Egg - Part 162018-11-11T17:58:30Z<p>SJL: </p>
<hr />
<div>===[https://complib.org/method/18034 ''Kenninghall Surprise Major'']===<br />
<br />
Those ringers fortunate to have the opportunity to ring more advanced methods on 10 and 12 will be used to the concept of ‘formulaic’ methods. Formulaic methods have structures which are very driven by the treble, particularly the above work, but often the work below the treble as well. Formulaic methods can be rung by sets of rules, so it is helpful to have an advanced awareness of structure and an ability to see where the treble is. Bristol becomes much more formulaic the more bells you ring it on, and very popular methods like Phobos and Zanussi are described as formulaic. This nature of methods makes them much easier to ring in practice than their blue lines might suggest.<br />
<br />
Many of these more advanced, yet popular, methods on 12 feature wrong hunting below the treble, i.e. hunting where the leading is back and hand rather than hand and back. The general lack of more advanced ringing on 10, the paucity of bands ringing Spliced Surprise Royal, and the propensity of such bands to stick to extensions of the Standard 8, mean that there is a huge gap between the standard methods on 8 and 12. A Surprise Major method that clearly demonstrates how a right place backwork can be married with a wrong place plain hunting frontwork could at least start to bridge the gap. <br />
<br />
Most ringers at the Surprise Major level are familiar with the concept of wrong hunting. For a start it is one of things that makes London more difficult! It may not make any difference to you but the difficulty in wrong hunting is usually noticed when bells lead, with the handstroke lead tending to be difficult to strike. In early discussion on PPE we felt it was important that wrong hunting is tackled in ringing Surprise Major because otherwise the first time wrong hunting like this is met is London Royal, or even Bristol Maximus. So we set about looking for something that was right place above and with plenty of uninterrupted wrong hunting below. The top pick was Kenninghall. <br />
<br />
Kenninghall is Cornwall above and has Cornwall lead-end order, but has wrong hunting on four for a large part of the work below the treble. And to make it better, and set it apart from London, which also has lots of wrong hunting below, the wrong hunting in Kenninghall keeps bells in coursing order. Look at the grid of Kenninghall and you will see the block of wrong hunting below the treble – the wrong hunting in London is not as isolated or clear as this and London is much harder.<br />
<br />
Any method selected for Project Pickled Egg needs to be worthy of ringing in its own right at the same time as providing a progression and introducing something new. Kenninghall scores well – any band that has rung Cornwall should be able to tackle Kenninghall and just focus on this wrong hunting work. Keeping Cornwall above isolates the new learning and reduces cognitive load (my school-teacher wife wrote that bit!). <br />
<br />
It was said on the Facebook group that the front work is confusing because it all looks the same. That’s true – it does look the same in blue line terms – how do you remember which bit of 4ths and back you are in and hence when to stop? The clue unsurprisingly comes from the treble, and hence this is a good method for trying to see where the treble is and using it to make ringing the method easier. Half of the method is easily rung simply by knowing that whenever the treble is in places 5-8, one simply wrong hunts in places 1-4 and treble bob hunts in places 5-8. When the treble is in places 1-4, the blue line is very tame and identical to Cornwall. The transitions into and out of the wrong hunting on the front as the treble moves from 4 to 5 and vice versa are about as intuitive as they could possibly be.<br />
<br />
There are two methods that were considered for providing the ‘right place above, some wrong hunting below’ feature. Chesterfield is reasonably well known because it is in Stephen Chandler’s iconic and aspirational composition of 23 Spliced. It is Cambridge above for reduced cognitive load (and excitement), an e group method would be new for PPE, but not that special musically. The other method which almost made the main list was York. York fulfils the brief in terms of isolating the wrong hunting below with a right place above work, but given the front work is slightly more difficult than that of Kenninghall, and the backwork is new (but simple), it sits well as this week’s ‘try also’. <br />
<br />
For compositions of Kenninghall use any good composition of Cornwall. The music above the treble will be exactly the same, and most of the rows below the treble are the same. <br />
<br />
There is only going to be one more new method introduced (and it’s a cracker) before I embark on a discussion about how Project Pickled Egg gets disseminated beyond the pages of the Ringing World and a Facebook discussion group. There are signs that seeds are dropping and taking root – a quarter peal of Deva here, Lessness as a special method there, and more and more people are discussing methods. Who knows it might even get a mention at the Central Council this weekend! But as was said of Project Pickled Egg on Facebook: “Until its widely rung, all we are achieving is fine talk…”<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
==References==<br />
* [https://bb.ringingworld.co.uk/issues/2018/496 ''The Ringing World''], No 5587, 25 May 2018, pg 496.</div>SJLhttps://wiki.changeringing.co.uk/index.php?title=Project_Pickled_Egg_-_Part_17&diff=2210Project Pickled Egg - Part 172018-11-11T17:57:02Z<p>SJL: /* Cooktown Orchid Delight Major */</p>
<hr />
<div>===[https://complib.org/method/24457 ''Cooktown Orchid Delight Major'']===<br />
<br />
There should be room in any larder for a few luxuries. These will not necessarily be used for everyday cooking, but are there to satisfy the occasional need for an indulgence.<br />
<br />
Cooktown Orchid is a superstar amongst methods. When you look at the line it might not look like anything special, but it is one of ringing’s best kept secrets. It had multiple recommendations for inclusion from the initial consultees, summarised as follows:<br />
<br />
• Supremely musical method<br />
• Relatively easy, right place<br />
• Different lead end order (a group)<br />
• Very good in spliced<br />
• Delight method, so breaks the illogical aversion to Delight methods<br />
<br />
That final point, that Cooktown Orchid is a Delight method, has underpinned its recommendation for Project Pickled Egg. In developing the initial method suggestion list, Cooktown Orchid was going to get in anyway on merit, but the fact that it is Delight meant we didn’t have to look any further to ensure one such method was included. <br />
<br />
Before explaining why we felt this delightful urge, I will give as untechnical an explanation as I can of the difference between Surprise and Delight. It is to do with places made when the treble moves between dodging positions (called the ‘cross sections’), i.e. from 1-2 to 3-4, or 3-4 to 5-6, not including a bell leading or lying behind. A Treble Bob method doesn’t have internal places made at any cross section, a Surprise method has an internal place made at every cross section, and a Delight method has an internal place made at some of them (not all or none). <br />
<br />
What is the practical effect of this? Delight methods are a little bit more fluid than Surprise methods, as they have fewer internal places and more hunting. This is noticeable on six bells, but on eight or more it makes little practical difference. Some would argue that Delight methods can actually be better than Surprise. The term Surprise was only first coined as a catch-all term for all the emerging methods that were not Treble Bob or Delight! We would probably be better off if no one had invented the terms in the first place, but we are stuck with them.<br />
<br />
On ten bells, Triton is a popular London-type method and no one cares that it is Delight, whilst on 12, Avon (Delight) is a firm favourite of bands pushing the boat out beyond Bristol (Surprise) Maximus. The Bretton handbell band has just completed the Delight Royal alphabet on handbells. Yet on eight there seems to be reluctance to ring non-Surprise methods, and certainly a reluctance to include them in peals of spliced which would otherwise be described as ‘Spliced Surprise’.<br />
<br />
Inclusion of a Delight method in the Project Pickled Egg selection is intended to demonstrate that Delight methods aren’t some inferior caste, but should sit alongside and amongst Surprise methods at least as equals. Cooktown Orchid, whether rung on its own or in spliced, will be found to be a great method and extremely musical. It is not difficult, although the below and above works both need learning as they will be unfamiliar. <br />
<br />
Alan Reading had this to say about it: “Having rung/composed/called a number of peals of Cooktown Orchid myself I believe that actually it does flow very well and produce the music in nice ways. It's also interesting to note that about 69% of the lead is the same as Cambridge anyway in terms of place notation – it’s only the part of the lead surrounding the quarter and three quarter lead that differs. The fact it captures some of the nice structure of Cambridge but with vastly improved opportunities for all kinds of quantifiable music and significantly reduced falseness is one of the best things about it in my opinion!”<br />
<br />
One issue with Delight methods is that including them in compositions of spliced makes the description of such performances less elegant. When all the methods in a composition are Surprise, the title of the performance becomes ‘Spliced Surprise’ and the individual methods are listed excluding the ‘class descriptors’, e.g. Bristol, Lessness, Superlative, etc, rather than Bristol Surprise, or Bristol S. But when methods with more than one class descriptor are used (e.g. Surprise and Delight), things change. Surprise and Delight (and Treble Bob) all belong to a ‘parent class’ called ‘Treble Dodging’, so you use that in the performance title. This protocol is set out in the draft Framework for Method Ringing which says:<br />
<br />
If the Methods that were spliced have more than one Class Descriptor, any common class elements are included in the Performance title, and the remainder are included in the Method list. For example:<br />
<br />
Performance Title: 1280 Spliced Treble Dodging Major<br />
Performance Detail: 3m: 416 each Cambridge Surprise, Megan Delight; 448 Imperial Treble Bob; 2 com; atw<br />
<br />
In this example the Methods rung do not have the same Class Descriptors, but they are all Treble Dodging Methods. Treble Dodging is therefore included in the Performance Title, and the Method Names and Class Descriptors are included in the Performance Detail.<br />
<br />
Compositions of spliced including Cooktown Orchid will therefore either need to appear as Spliced Treble Dodging Major (as tends to have been the case to date), or could just be referred to as Spliced Major, with abbreviated method class in the description, e.g. Bristol S, Cooktown Orchid D, Superlative S. The obvious temptation is to miss the class descriptor altogether, but this doesn’t enable the performance to be described precisely as the same method names have been used for more than one class (Kent Treble Bob and Kent Surprise).<br />
<br />
Cooktown Orchid is musical in the plain course, generating 5678 runs off the front and back, but comes into its own in longer compositions. AJB offers this particular favourite for a quarter peal:<br />
<br />
1344 Cooktown Orchid Delight Major<br />
Generated by Arr AJB (SMC32)<br />
2345678 W V 4 M H<br />
4235678 -<br />
7354628 - - <br />
2348765 2 <br />
2 part<br />
18 5678, 6 6578, 18 8765, 96 back combinations of 5678<br />
16 front 8765, 16 front 5678, 96 front combinations 5678<br />
24 CRUs 8 1234s front/back, 8 4321s front/back<br />
<br />
Put Cooktown Orchid in the larder. And don’t just save it for special occasions!<br />
<br />
==References==<br />
* [https://bb.ringingworld.co.uk/issues/2018/544 ''The Ringing World''], No 5589, 8 June 2018, pg 544.</div>SJLhttps://wiki.changeringing.co.uk/index.php?title=Project_Pickled_Egg_-_Part_18&diff=2209Project Pickled Egg - Part 182018-11-11T17:55:01Z<p>SJL: Created page with "===[https://complib.org/method/20055 ''Glasgow Surprise Major'']=== Over the next three weeks I am going to consider two methods which are often uttered in the same breath, a..."</p>
<hr />
<div>===[https://complib.org/method/20055 ''Glasgow Surprise Major'']===<br />
<br />
Over the next three weeks I am going to consider two methods which are often uttered in the same breath, a breath which may instill fear or wonder in equal measure. They are two methods that are often considered to be the next two after the ‘Standard 8’. I am of course talking about Glasgow and Belfast. <br />
<br />
Although they are often linked, and I expect there are more compositions of spliced that have both in rather than one, they are very different animals. For the purpose of Project Pickled Egg they need to be considered separately as there is no good argument for treating them as a pair. <br />
<br />
Glasgow is not a ‘middle aged’ method – first pealed in 1947 and certainly very challenging then. It went on to be included in Norman Smith’s 23 Spliced as one of the more difficult methods in the composition, and then it was teamed up with Bristol, London and Belfast in Roddy Horton’s all the work one part composition ‘Horton’s 4’, which has become one of the classic compositions, a target and badge of honour for many a band and conductor. <br />
<br />
Glasgow was the first difficult method I learned, as it was introduced into my local association probably in the early 1980s. Learning it represented my breakthrough into the upper echelons of the Society, getting to ring in the ‘top touch’, the touch featuring all those ringers who I aspired to be like. And it was like nothing I had seen before. It has some bits of work that are like London, points which seemed to come in weird places for instance point fifths and back from the front, odd places like the 5ths after passing the treble on the way out, dodges in 45 (!) rather than the conventional 34 or 56, and bobs which were a recipe for disaster. <br />
<br />
That’s the key feature of Glasgow when you first see it – the lack of familiarity with what has gone before. You are clutching at straws trying to piece it together from things you already know, even if you had been following the Project Pickled Egg path and had a solid grounding in methods of different types. Although it has Plain Bob lead end order, defined as Group G, it doesn’t really feel like that because it is an 8ths place method, and the 45 dodge at the lead that causes you to become 4ths or 5ths place bell may have you thinking you are going in the wrong direction. <br />
<br />
The above work is actually one which is used a lot in methods on higher numbers. It is one of the classics. Unfortunately, the basic structure (more usually referred to as Strathclyde above from the Maximus variant) doesn’t actually become obvious when you only ring it on 8! The structure features a fishtail immediately, e.g. 7ths place bell does 878 and then goes down, 8ths place bell does 787 and goes out, and then the bells above plain hunt wrong until the treble is in 56, when they do another fishtail, then set off in the right direction again. This formula is interrupted by any bell that meets the treble before the treble gets to 56. Unfortunately in Glasgow Major, no bells get to do the second of the two fishtails because there isn’t room above the treble. The pure structure is not apparent until you ring the Royal extension (Clyde) or the Maximus extension (Strathclyde). <br />
<br />
So there is no doubt Glasgow presents a significant challenge the first time you see it or ring it. But is it any good? Is it worth the effort? Does it make it into the Project Pickled Egg larder?<br />
<br />
Firstly I am going to spell out the original PPE tests, as it has been a while, and then consider Glasgow against them.<br />
<br />
1. It should be musical in the plain course<br />
Well it isn’t particularly, although it provides variety. Not a shocker but nothing special. A band ringing a quarter peal of this for the first time is so worried and is concentrating so hard that any music in the composition probably won’t get noticed! I don’t think any band tries to ring a musical composition of Glasgow.<br />
<br />
2. It should introduce a useful new skill, technique or concept, and hence be progressive – it does introduce some new skills, but we can debate how useful those skills are.<br />
<br />
3. It should not have limiting falseness<br />
Not a reason for excluding it<br />
<br />
4. Some familiarity is helpful<br />
OK on this one - there are lots of ringers who know Glasgow which makes it quite accessible for the learner. So if you are just looking to include a difficult method, one which quite a lot of ringers know already aids adoption<br />
<br />
None of that is compelling so we need to consider the bigger picture. <br />
<br />
Experienced ringers point to the 45 half lead dodge as an important feature that is worth getting used to. Indeed, doing a half lead dodge that is not in 12, 34 or 56 is different, and does happen in more difficult methods. However, when I first learned Glasgow I had no idea that the dodge in 45 was at the half lead, and I don’t know if it would have helped me or not. The 45 dodge at the lead end was more obvious, but that isn’t actually a very common feature in other methods. What it does introduce that is new is the concept of a ‘normal’ 4ths place bob causing bells to do things that seem very different.<br />
<br />
For those who have mastered ringing the methods, Glasgow becomes a very interesting method in Spliced. It adds variety, difficulty, interest, spice, risk, a useful lead order, different musical possibilities. Composers like it, and some say that although it isn’t particularly musical in its own right, it can help bring out the best in a composition. <br />
<br />
In summary, the arguments in favour of included Glasgow in PPE as a method recommended to be learned:<br />
<br />
It is a useful above work (though not obviously expressed on 8)<br />
<br />
• Group G - not previously encountered<br />
• Unusual blue line with many new features<br />
• 4-5 dodge at the half lead is a key feature and very worth knowing<br />
• The bobs demonstrate that not all 4ths place bobs are created equal<br />
• Works well in spliced<br />
• Included in Smiths 23 and Hortons 4 compositions (and many other more difficult comps)<br />
• Gateway to more difficult methods<br />
<br />
Arguments against<br />
<br />
• Does not meet the original PPE criteria particularly in not being a musical plain course<br />
• Lack of music off the front<br />
• There may be better options that achieve the same, but without the familiarity<br />
<br />
Finally, Glasgow carries emotional and historic attachment which could be considered an argument for including it. <br />
<br />
Although there are more arguments for than against, Glasgow is still only really getting included because the new features it introduces, and familiarity of the method, means it is an accessible way of introducing something very different and difficult. Like Cambridge and London, it is not getting in on merit. That leads one to ask whether there is a method that fulfils the same criteria, but in the extensive discussion group debate there were no compelling candidates. <br />
<br />
Another debate amongst those on the PPE discussion group was whether the list of methods needs to go this far. Do we need aspirational ‘marquee methods’ that might be seen as the end goal of the Project, or should the Project remain as a set of foundations after which followers will be able to ring and learn almost anything, including Glasgow (and Belfast). If it is only about finding a difficult method to finish with there would definitely be better candidates than Glasgow. <br />
<br />
After much debate in the Facebook discussion group, I launched a poll – a sort of ‘In / Out’ referendum which has proved such a good way of making critical decisions. Unfortunately after a few people had voted, I introduced a third choice – ‘something like Glasgow but not Glasgow’ – and muddied the water. A new referendum was suggested!<br />
<br />
I am not going to conclude on Glasgow yet. Next week I am going to look at Belfast, and in the meantime, let this smoulder and then post the poll again. It will be the people’s vote.</div>SJLhttps://wiki.changeringing.co.uk/index.php?title=Project_Pickled_Egg_-_Part_17&diff=2208Project Pickled Egg - Part 172018-11-11T17:53:25Z<p>SJL: </p>
<hr />
<div>===[https://complib.org/method/24457 ''Cooktown Orchid Delight Major'']===<br />
<br />
There should be room in any larder for a few luxuries. These will not necessarily be used for everyday cooking, but are there to satisfy the occasional need for an indulgence.<br />
<br />
Cooktown Orchid is a superstar amongst methods. When you look at the line it might not look like anything special, but it is one of ringing’s best kept secrets. It had multiple recommendations for inclusion from the initial consultees, summarised as follows:<br />
<br />
• Supremely musical method<br />
• Relatively easy, right place<br />
• Different lead end order (a group)<br />
• Very good in spliced<br />
• Delight method, so breaks the illogical aversion to Delight methods<br />
<br />
That final point, that Cooktown Orchid is a Delight method, has underpinned its recommendation for Project Pickled Egg. In developing the initial method suggestion list, Cooktown Orchid was going to get in anyway on merit, but the fact that it is Delight meant we didn’t have to look any further to ensure one such method was included. <br />
<br />
Before explaining why we felt this delightful urge, I will give as untechnical an explanation as I can of the difference between Surprise and Delight. It is to do with places made when the treble moves between dodging positions (called the ‘cross sections’), i.e. from 1-2 to 3-4, or 3-4 to 5-6, not including a bell leading or lying behind. A Treble Bob method doesn’t have internal places made at any cross section, a Surprise method has an internal place made at every cross section, and a Delight method has an internal place made at some of them (not all or none). <br />
<br />
What is the practical effect of this? Delight methods are a little bit more fluid than Surprise methods, as they have fewer internal places and more hunting. This is noticeable on six bells, but on eight or more it makes little practical difference. Some would argue that Delight methods can actually be better than Surprise. The term Surprise was only first coined as a catch-all term for all the emerging methods that were not Treble Bob or Delight! We would probably be better off if no one had invented the terms in the first place, but we are stuck with them.<br />
<br />
On ten bells, Triton is a popular London-type method and no one cares that it is Delight, whilst on 12, Avon (Delight) is a firm favourite of bands pushing the boat out beyond Bristol (Surprise) Maximus. The Bretton handbell band has just completed the Delight Royal alphabet on handbells. Yet on eight there seems to be reluctance to ring non-Surprise methods, and certainly a reluctance to include them in peals of spliced which would otherwise be described as ‘Spliced Surprise’.<br />
<br />
Inclusion of a Delight method in the Project Pickled Egg selection is intended to demonstrate that Delight methods aren’t some inferior caste, but should sit alongside and amongst Surprise methods at least as equals. Cooktown Orchid, whether rung on its own or in spliced, will be found to be a great method and extremely musical. It is not difficult, although the below and above works both need learning as they will be unfamiliar. <br />
<br />
Alan Reading had this to say about it: “Having rung/composed/called a number of peals of Cooktown Orchid myself I believe that actually it does flow very well and produce the music in nice ways. It's also interesting to note that about 69% of the lead is the same as Cambridge anyway in terms of place notation – it’s only the part of the lead surrounding the quarter and three quarter lead that differs. The fact it captures some of the nice structure of Cambridge but with vastly improved opportunities for all kinds of quantifiable music and significantly reduced falseness is one of the best things about it in my opinion!”<br />
<br />
One issue with Delight methods is that including them in compositions of spliced makes the description of such performances less elegant. When all the methods in a composition are Surprise, the title of the performance becomes ‘Spliced Surprise’ and the individual methods are listed excluding the ‘class descriptors’, e.g. Bristol, Lessness, Superlative, etc, rather than Bristol Surprise, or Bristol S. But when methods with more than one class descriptor are used (e.g. Surprise and Delight), things change. Surprise and Delight (and Treble Bob) all belong to a ‘parent class’ called ‘Treble Dodging’, so you use that in the performance title. This protocol is set out in the draft Framework for Method Ringing which says:<br />
<br />
If the Methods that were spliced have more than one Class Descriptor, any common class elements are included in the Performance title, and the remainder are included in the Method list. For example:<br />
<br />
Performance Title: 1280 Spliced Treble Dodging Major<br />
Performance Detail: 3m: 416 each Cambridge Surprise, Megan Delight; 448 Imperial Treble Bob; 2 com; atw<br />
<br />
In this example the Methods rung do not have the same Class Descriptors, but they are all Treble Dodging Methods. Treble Dodging is therefore included in the Performance Title, and the Method Names and Class Descriptors are included in the Performance Detail.<br />
<br />
Compositions of spliced including Cooktown Orchid will therefore either need to appear as Spliced Treble Dodging Major (as tends to have been the case to date), or could just be referred to as Spliced Major, with abbreviated method class in the description, e.g. Bristol S, Cooktown Orchid D, Superlative S. The obvious temptation is to miss the class descriptor altogether, but this doesn’t enable the performance to be described precisely as the same method names have been used for more than one class (Kent Treble Bob and Kent Surprise).<br />
<br />
Cooktown Orchid is musical in the plain course, generating 5678 runs off the front and back, but comes into its own in longer compositions. AJB offers this particular favourite for a quarter peal:<br />
<br />
1344 Cooktown Orchid Delight Major<br />
Generated by Arr AJB (SMC32)<br />
2345678 W V 4 M H<br />
4235678 -<br />
7354628 - - <br />
2348765 2 <br />
2 part<br />
18 5678, 6 6578, 18 8765, 96 back combinations of 5678<br />
16 front 8765, 16 front 5678, 96 front combinations 5678<br />
24 CRUs 8 1234s front/back, 8 4321s front/back<br />
<br />
Put Cooktown Orchid in the larder. And don’t just save it for special occasions!<br />
<br />
<br />
==References==<br />
* [https://bb.ringingworld.co.uk/issues/2018/544 ''The Ringing World''], No 5589, 8 June 2018, pg 544.</div>SJLhttps://wiki.changeringing.co.uk/index.php?title=Project_Pickled_Egg&diff=2207Project Pickled Egg2018-11-11T17:48:41Z<p>SJL: </p>
<hr />
<div>Project Pickled Egg aims to develop properly a new set of Core Surprise Major methods to replace the Standard 8, with the degree of thought, consultation and follow-up resource that could have traction. It was created by Simon Linford and is explored through a series of articles in the Ringing World that are repeated here.<br />
<br />
* [[Project Pickled Egg - Part 1]] - Background<br />
* [[Project Pickled Egg - Part 2]] - Where did the Standard 8 come from?<br />
* [[Project Pickled Egg - Part 3]] - Core Principles<br />
* [[Project Pickled Egg - Part 4]] - Cambridge<br />
* [[Project Pickled Egg - Part 5]] - Yorkshire<br />
* [[Project Pickled Egg - Part 6]] - Cornwall<br />
* [[Project Pickled Egg - Part 7]] - Superlative<br />
* [[Project Pickled Egg - Part 8]] - Dustbin Week!<br />
* [[Project Pickled Egg - Part 9]] - Bristol<br />
* [[Project Pickled Egg - Part 10]] - Lessness<br />
* [[Project Pickled Egg - Part 11]] - London<br />
* [[Project Pickled Egg - Part 12]] - The "Core Seven"<br />
* [[Project Pickled Egg - Part 13]] - A little bit of spliced<br />
* [[Project Pickled Egg - Part 14]] - Deva<br />
* [[Project Pickled Egg - Part 15]] - Lancashire<br />
* [[Project Pickled Egg - Part 16]] - Kenninghall<br />
* [[Project Pickled Egg - Part 17]] - Cooktown Orchid<br />
* [[Project Pickled Egg - Part 18]] - Glasgow<br />
<br />
to be continued ...</div>SJLhttps://wiki.changeringing.co.uk/index.php?title=Project_Pickled_Egg_-_Part_13&diff=2206Project Pickled Egg - Part 132018-11-11T17:45:10Z<p>SJL: </p>
<hr />
<div>===A Little Bit of Spliced===<br />
<br />
The first seven PPE methods, the 'Core Seven', may well be practiced first as whole courses, but then ringers and bands will be looking to combine them in touches of spliced. <br />
<br />
I think it is very worthwhile explaining the techniques for putting together touches of spliced rather than just offering a selection of touches that work. This skill seems to be locked in the box that only members of the conducting ‘Magic Circle’ know how to open. <br />
<br />
All the Surprise Major methods we ever ring have the same seven lead ends – the ones that come in a course of Plain Bob Major. We call them the Plain Bob lead ends. This may seem surprising, but historically methods without Plain Bob lead ends were called “irregular” and were frowned upon. Composers of methods stuck to the “regular” Plain Bob lead ends which makes composition and conducting far easier. (There are just 76 out of nearly 6000 Surprise Major methods without Plain Bob lead ends.)<br />
<br />
We can assign these methods to groups based on two things: the order of the lead ends and the change rung at the lead end itself. For example, a method that has lead ends in the same order as Plain Bob, and which has second-place lead ends like Plain Bob, is an “a” group method (as is Plain Bob, itself). Cambridge has a first lead end that is the same as the second lead end of Plain Bob and is a “b” group method. Methods with seconds-place lead ends are in groups a g. depending on the order of the lead ends. Methods that have eighth-place lead ends are assigned to groups h m, again, depending on the order of the lead ends. One of the most popular groups, m group, is usually rung with 4ths place bobs and designated ‘mx’.<br />
<br />
In PPE, our first seven ingredients are three b group methods (Cambridge, Yorkshire, and Superlative), two f group methods (London and Lessness), one l group (Cornwall – and it’s “L” as in leather), and one “mx” method (Bristol). The Standard 8 only have three groups (b, f, and mx). Despite having one fewer method than the Standard 8, in PPE we have one more lead end group, which gives us quite a bit more flexibility.<br />
<br />
So, how do you splice them?<br />
<br />
For a simple start, you can ring seven leads of the same lead end group in any order – a plain course. For example, you can freely splice Cambridge, Superlative, and Yorkshire, all b group methods, and for more of a challenge you can freely splice the two f group methods, Lessness and London. Actually, as long as you aren’t fussed about truth, which you shouldn’t be for short touches, you can add Bristol to Lessness and London even though they are in different groups - as long as there are no bobs called, f group and mx methods have the same lead end order. <br />
<br />
From now on, we are going to abbreviate the method names. Cambridge, Yorkshire, Superlative, London and Bristol are easy: “C”, “Y”, “S”, “L”, and “B”, respectively. Lessness is usually abbreviated “E”, and Cornwall as “W”. These abbreviations are not universal, but are common enough.<br />
<br />
You can get a different length course by mixing method groups. You can do this by thinking about what place bells the tenor is ringing. For instance if you rang four leads of the b group methods, e.g. CSYS, the tenor would have become 7ths place bell. So you think to yourself “what sort of method gets you from 7ths place bell back to 8ths in one lead?” The answer is any f group or mx method – London, Lessness or Bristol. So it is worth remembering that a single lead of an f group or mx method, plus four leads of b group methods, comes round, and that you can ring them in any order. <br />
<br />
Another way of thinking about that five lead course is that the f group method had the same effect as three leads of b group methods – it gets the tenor to the same place. So you could replace three more of the leads of CY or S with another lead of, for instance, London. <br />
<br />
Then we have Cornwall where 8ths place bell becomes 4ths. How do you get from 4ths place bell back home to 8ths? Simply with one lead of Cambridge or equivalent. So there is a two lead course combining Cornwall with any of the b group methods, either way round. <br />
<br />
What course options do we have with the Starter Seven? First here is a recap of method names, their abbreviations and their groups:<br />
<br />
{|border=1<br />
|C || Cambridge || b group<br />
|-<br />
|Y || Yorkshire || b group<br />
|-<br />
|S || Superlative || b group<br />
|-<br />
|W || Cornwall || l group<br />
|-<br />
|B || Bristol || mx<br />
|-<br />
|L || London || f group<br />
|-<br />
|E || Lessness || f group<br />
|}<br />
<br />
Note the use of capital letters for methods and small letters for groups.<br />
<br />
{|border=1<br />
!No of leads !! Explanation !! Example<br />
|-<br />
|7 || Mix C Y and S in any order || CYSYCYS<br />
|-<br />
|7 || Mix L E and B in any order || BELBELB<br />
|-<br />
|5 || One lead of an f group, plus four of b group || LCCCC<br />
|-<br />
|3 || Two leads of f or mx, and one b || LSL<br />
|-<br />
|2 || Cornwall plus one b group || WC<br />
|}<br />
<br />
Now for a complication – calls. If you make a call at Middle Wrong or Home (when the tenor becomes 6ths, 7ths and 8ths place bells respectively) in a 2nds place method the lead order is not affected because the tenor is not affected. If, however, you call a bob at the end of a lead of Cornwall or Bristol, the order does change – the tenor “jumps” on the line. In Bristol the tenor jumps back a lead and rings the same lead again. In Cornwall … have a look at it and see what it does.<br />
<br />
A simple touch comprising three bobs at Home could therefore be put together with three short courses all called differently, containing six of the PPE methods. For instance:<br />
<br />
<u>23456 H</u><br />
42356 - LSE. <br />
34256 - WY.<br />
<u>23456 -</u> B.<br />
<br />
It is worth getting used to how touches like this are often written out. The calling positions used are at the top (just Homes in this case). The course ends brought up at the end of the course are on the left (missing out 1 7 and 8 as they stay the same), calls made in each course are shown as dashes in the appropriate column, and each course is on a separate line. It may seem counter-intuitive, but the numbers on the left are the course end that results from calling the calls and methods to the right. <br />
<br />
So in a more wordy form this is <br />
* LSE (bob) - three lead course, Superlative as middle lead will have Queens in, Lessness and London interchangeable<br />
* WY (bob) – two lead course, start with Cornwall otherwise the bob messes it up<br />
* B (bob) – Bristol repeats the lead so repeats the call<br />
<br />
Any course can be extended by calling a bob at the end and then adding a couple of bobbed leads of Bristol, e.g. LSL-B-B- (That’s another way of writing it – a string of letters with the bobs as dashes.) Two bobbed leads of Bristol at the end is nice because they contain a few 5678 roll ups. So just with short courses and bobs at Home you have lots of good practice options. <br />
<br />
As a composer/conductor, you expand your repertoire of callings for short touches. Then all you then need to do is use combinations of methods that will get you to those calling positions. For practice touches we don’t tend to worry about truth, so all we need to do is work out how to get back to rounds by combining methods with different lead-end orders with callings that would come round if rung to a single method. <br />
<br />
Touches worth knowing are:<br />
<br />
* 3H or 3W<br />
* sH sH<br />
* W H W H<br />
* B W M<br />
<br />
I will more often that not use W H W H for a shortish touch, particularly if I am wanting to test changing direction in and out of London. That would be <br />
<br />
LS-L- <br />
LC-L-<br />
<br />
Don Morrison has offered the following options showing how these touches can be used to combine the PPE methods. An s in a column denotes a Single, with the dash used for Bobs.<br />
<br />
<u>23456 H</u><br />
24356 s WC.<br />
<u>23456 s</u> YCYCW.<br />
<br />
<u>23456 H</u><br />
42356 - EYE.<br />
34256 - WC.<br />
<u>23456 -</u> WY.<br />
<br />
<u>23456 H</u><br />
24356 s ESE.<br />
<u>23456 s</u> WLWBW.<br />
<br />
<u>23456 H</u><br />
24356 s B.<br />
32456 - EWWLE.<br />
(<u>23456) </u> BS(E)<br />
<br />
<u>23456 H</u><br />
24356 s WS.<br />
32456 - LCE.<br />
(<u>32456) </u> BY(Y)<br />
<br />
Those two touches will come round after two rows of the method in brackets, i.e. at the treble backstroke snap with the tenor is 7ths place bell.<br />
<br />
<u>23456 B W M</u> <br />
<u>23456 - - -</u> CY.EL.WB.SE<br />
<br />
A different calling introduced here, with a bob before (tenor runs out). Note that this is the lead of Superlative with Queens in because after the three bobs you are back in the plain course. <br />
<br />
<u>23456 W B H</u><br />
52436 - LS.B<br />
<u>25364 - s</u> WE.CY.(S)<br />
<br />
<u>23456 </u><br />
(<u>32456) sB,sB,sF,B,V,B</u> SC.B.W.L.E.Y.W(C)<br />
<br />
Next week I will move into the next batch of methods, including some less familiar names. Any criticism levelled at PPE so far, for instance that all it has done is dropped NPR from the Standard 8 and added Cornwall and Lessness, which are quite well known anyway, may start to disappear.<br />
<br />
==References==<br />
* [https://bb.ringingworld.co.uk/issues/2018/423 ''The Ringing World''], No 5584, 4 May 2018, pg 423.</div>SJLhttps://wiki.changeringing.co.uk/index.php?title=Project_Pickled_Egg&diff=2205Project Pickled Egg2018-11-11T17:43:54Z<p>SJL: </p>
<hr />
<div>Project Pickled Egg aims to develop properly a new set of Core Surprise Major methods to replace the Standard 8, with the degree of thought, consultation and follow-up resource that could have traction. It was created by Simon Linford and is explored through a series of articles in the Ringing World that are repeated here.<br />
<br />
* [[Project Pickled Egg - Part 1]] - Background<br />
* [[Project Pickled Egg - Part 2]] - Where did the Standard 8 come from?<br />
* [[Project Pickled Egg - Part 3]] - Core Principles<br />
* [[Project Pickled Egg - Part 4]] - Cambridge<br />
* [[Project Pickled Egg - Part 5]] - Yorkshire<br />
* [[Project Pickled Egg - Part 6]] - Cornwall<br />
* [[Project Pickled Egg - Part 7]] - Superlative<br />
* [[Project Pickled Egg - Part 8]] - Dustbin Week!<br />
* [[Project Pickled Egg - Part 9]] - Bristol<br />
* [[Project Pickled Egg - Part 10]] - Lessness<br />
* [[Project Pickled Egg - Part 11]] - London<br />
* [[Project Pickled Egg - Part 12]] - The "Core Seven"<br />
* [[Project Pickled Egg - Part 13]] - A little bit of spliced<br />
* [[Project Pickled Egg - Part 14]] - Deva<br />
* [[Project Pickled Egg - Part 15]] - Lancashire<br />
* [[Project Pickled Egg - Part 16]] - Kenninghall<br />
* [[Project Pickled Egg - Part 17]] - Cooktown Orchid<br />
<br />
to be continued ...</div>SJLhttps://wiki.changeringing.co.uk/index.php?title=Project_Pickled_Egg_-_Part_12&diff=2204Project Pickled Egg - Part 122018-11-11T17:43:32Z<p>SJL: </p>
<hr />
<div>===The Core Seven===<br />
<br />
Project Pickled Egg aims to develop a group of Treble Dodging Major methods to replace the Standard 8, with the degree of thought, consultation and follow up resource that could have traction. It would be a set of core methods that would teach ringers how to ring Surprise Major in a progressive way, with each additional method building on what has come before, and clear reasoning for why it adds value. The Standard 8 was never designed to do that - in fact it was never designed at all, and yet it has been used as a learning pathway for 50 years. There is great variety in Surprise Major ringing, without just making methods more difficult, and the Standard 8 hardly scratches the surface.<br />
<br />
I was keen from the start that the number of core methods should not be eight, to avoid any direct comparison with the Standard 8. There are actually going to be at least 12 methods recommended in Project Pickled Egg (lots more weeks to go yet!), and as many ‘try also’ options. What the initial consultees found was that it was not too difficult to define the first seven, but after that the choices and paths start to diverge as there are lots of different options. So at this point, with the first seven methods presented and no great argument against them, it is time to stop for a summary. <br />
<br />
Our seven methods, in the order they have been introduced, are:<br />
<br />
{|border=1<br />
|Cambridge ||traditional starting point, well known, logical extension from Cambridge Minor<br />
|-<br />
|Yorkshire ||same above work and lead end order, well known, not too different below<br />
|-<br />
|Cornwall ||8ths place method and new lead end order, musical, easy to ring and conduct<br />
|-<br />
|Superlative ||classic, double method, introduces turning round not at front or back and the technique of counting five pull dodges<br />
|-<br />
|Bristol ||more difficult, but learnable in bite-sized chunks, introduces a wrong place method and new blue line features, much loved classic <br />
|-<br />
|Lessness ||popular Uxbridge above work, familiar features below, musical plain course, new lead end order<br />
|-<br />
|London ||wrong hunting below and above the treble, changing direction in spliced, much more challenging<br />
|}<br />
<br />
If these methods form a ‘Core Seven’, and I think they should, what would be the best order to learn them in? <br />
<br />
In considering this, I think we should look beyond the confines of a list of Surprise Major methods, because some of the useful skills, some of the methods that will help, come from outside the group. For a start, learning a Surprise Major method without first having rung Kent Treble Bob really is making life difficult for yourself. Kent may not be the stuff of dreams, but it is a very good foundation method for treble dodging methods. <br />
<br />
My suggested order would be: <br />
<br />
{|border=1<br />
|(Kent) ||<br />
|-<br />
|Cambridge ||<br />
|-<br />
|Yorkshire (there are arguments for learning Yorkshire first) <br />
|| try also Turramurra<br />
|-<br />
|Superlative || try also Painswick<br />
|-<br />
|Cornwall (could be learned first, see below)<br />
||<br />
|-<br />
|Bristol || try also Double Dublin, Dublin, Frodsham<br />
|-<br />
|Lessness || try also Ytterbium, Uxbridge, Ealing, Ely<br />
|-<br />
|London ||<br />
|}<br />
<br />
I have suggested Lessness after Bristol only because learning Lessness after Cornwall might be confusing. In the early days before PPE catches hold there may be more opportunities to ring Bristol at practices than Lessness (and Cornwall). Also if the Core Seven just gets increasingly difficult it may give the impression that every new method is going to be harder than the last and this isn’t the case. Coming to Lessness after the challenge of Bristol will be a nice surprise (and soften you up for London!). <br />
<br />
====Alternative pathways and stepping stones====<br />
<br />
If Cambridge Major didn’t exist, we wouldn’t invent it as a starting point for learning to ring Surprise Major. We would be more likely to invent Yorkshire, or even York. <br />
<br />
I am by no means alone in having learned Little Bob Minor, Kent Minor, and Cambridge Minor before learning Cambridge Major. That is a good introduction to dodging, treble bob, Cambridge places and other Cambridge work. The jump to Cambridge is a big one as it is the transition from ringing formulaic methods by the treble, to following a blue line. It is useful therefore to have seen at least some of the features before. <br />
<br />
There is another route though. If you rang Oxford instead of Kent, and then Norwich instead of Cambridge, your first Surprise Major method could be Cornwall. Don Morrison has used the Cornwall route successfully in North America and it would be very interesting to get further experience of this approach.<br />
<br />
Thinking a bit further outside the box, another method that could form part of a pathway is [https://complib.org/method/23522 ''College Green Delight Minor'']. I expect this is as yet untested as a route into Surprise Major (I had not come across it until a week ago) but it looks as though it would give a great step towards Yorkshire rather than Cambridge. This pathway could then be Yorkshire, Cambridge as a try also, then Superlative, etc. <br />
<br />
As well as different possible pathways, there are stepping stones that can help with learning these methods. Not everyone needs stepping stones, and not everyone is going to get any. Of the 1,000 or so ringers who have rung 23 Spliced, I bet there aren’t many who hadn’t rung Kent or Cambridge Minor before Cambridge Major, although I know people now who are missing those steps out where there are bands who can support them. <br />
<br />
A few consultees on Facebook, where less experienced Surprise Major ringers have been giving very valuable input to this discussion, have said how they found London Minor and Stedman to be useful stepping stones to Bristol Major because they introduce snippets of work (Stedman whole turns for instance), although if Bristol is taught with an explanation of its structure it would be realised that the similarities with Stedman are a coincidence. <br />
<br />
Alternative pathways and stepping stones are difficult to test. I think we are unlikely to change habits of a lifetime without some empirical proof of success. It would need a lot of careful consideration, for instance by ART, to codify new pathways with less traditional methods such as College Green. One of the core principles of ART’s Learn the Ropes programme is the value of strong foundations, and this applies at the level of Surprise Major ringing as well.<br />
<br />
==References==<br />
* [https://bb.ringingworld.co.uk/issues/2018/372 ''The Ringing World''], No 5582, 20 April 2018, pg 372.</div>SJLhttps://wiki.changeringing.co.uk/index.php?title=Project_Pickled_Egg_-_Part_1&diff=2203Project Pickled Egg - Part 12018-11-11T17:40:20Z<p>SJL: </p>
<hr />
<div>__NOTOC__<br />
== Background ==<br />
Discussions on replacing the Standard 8 with better methods are almost as old as the Standard 8 themselves, and usually dissolve into nominations of ringers’ favourite methods and hatred of Pudsey and Rutland in particular. Ashtead and Uxbridge are often informally added to the Standard 8 without them having any particular merit, and Glasgow and Belfast have become relatively standard additional methods for those wanting more of a challenge. Ringers starting out ringing Surprise Major are almost always steered down the path of learning the Standard 8 in some order, usually the Cambridge above ones, then Bristol, etc. The benefit of learning the Standard 8 is that you are learning methods that your fellow ringers are likely to know, and you will be equipped with the skills to ring in the “touch of 8 spliced” which may be the Holy Grail of a Surprise Major practice. Compositionally, pursuit of the Standard 8 has created a vast body of compositions which are hampered rather than enhanced by the inclusion of all of these eight particular methods. Pitman’s 4 doesn’t really get any better by adding Yorkshire, Lincolnshire, Pudsey and Rutland. It is difficult for composers to make a silk purse out of a sow’s ear, although some have made admirable attempts. History has got us to the point where most ringers of Surprise Major have the basic ingredients of the Standard 8 in their larder. They are our staples, but unfortunately, they do not make a very good cake.<br />
<br />
== Aim ==<br />
Project Pickled Egg is developing a new set of Core Surprise Major methods to replace the Standard 8, with the degree of thought, consultation and follow-up resource that could have traction. There won’t be eight and they won’t be called ‘Standard’. They may not even all be Surprise. The whole point would be that it would be a set of core methods that would teach ringers how to ring Surprise Major in a progressive way, with each additional method building on what has come before, and clear reasoning for why it adds value.The emergence of ART, a reforming Central Council, and a new generation of young ringers coming through events such as the Ringing World National Youth Contest means there is a chance now to teach a whole new generation of ringers a different set of Surprise Major methods. We can stock these ringers’ larders with fresh and much more exciting ingredients than generations before had, which not only make better cakes, but teach them how to cook and how to shop for more ingredients. This will be a larder without any pickled eggs in!<br />
<br />
== The project ==<br />
The idea for Project Pickled Egg was conceived on a ringing friends holiday in summer 2017. It was then developed by a small group of collaborators (generally experts in composition and method construction, plus me) before being launched with this series of articles in the The Ringing World. Early on it was presented to the St Martin’s Guild, some members of which embraced it straight away! <br />
<br />
<pre><br />
ST MARTIN'S GUILD OF CHURCH BELL RINGERS<br />
EDGBASTON, W Mids, St Bartholomew<br />
Fri Jan 12 2018 2h44 (10)<br />
5024 Cooktown Orchid D Major<br />
Comp. Donald F Morrison (No.1745) <br />
1 Christine Mills <br />
2 Mark R Eccleston <br />
3 Stephanie J Warboys <br />
4 Catherine R Taylor <br />
5 James P Ramsbottom <br />
6 Michael P R H Woolley <br />
7 Alistair J Cherry (C) <br />
8 Jack E Page<br />
#projectpickledegg.<br />
In 8 peals, Jack has now circled the tower in order from treble to tenor. Well done Jack!<br />
</pre><br />
<br />
In Part 2 I will explain the methodology being used to consider whether a method makes it into the larder, as well as looking back at how the current Standard 8 got there in the first place.<br />
<br />
SIMON LINFORD<br><br />
Birmingham<br />
<br />
==References==<br />
* [https://bb.ringingworld.co.uk/issues/2018/55 ''The Ringing World''], No 5569, 19 January 2018, pg 55.</div>SJLhttps://wiki.changeringing.co.uk/index.php?title=Project_Pickled_Egg_-_Part_13&diff=2162Project Pickled Egg - Part 132018-05-27T14:32:49Z<p>SJL: </p>
<hr />
<div>===A LITTLE BIT OF SPLICED===<br />
<br />
The first seven PPE methods, maybe to become called the Starter Seven unless someone comes up with a better moniker, may well be practiced first as whole courses, but then ringers and bands will be looking to combine them in touches of spliced. <br />
<br />
I think it is very worthwhile explaining the techniques for putting together touches of spliced rather than just offering a selection of touches that work. This skill seems to be locked in the box that only members of the conducting ‘Magic Circle’ know how to open. <br />
<br />
All the Surprise Major methods we ever ring have the same seven lead ends – the ones that come in a course of Plain Bob Major. We call them the Plain Bob lead ends. This may seem surprising, but historically methods without Plain Bob lead ends were called “irregular” and were frowned upon. Composers of methods stuck to the “regular” Plain Bob lead ends which makes composition and conducting far easier. (There are just 76 out of nearly 6000 Surprise Major methods without Plain Bob lead ends.)<br />
<br />
We can assign these methods to groups based on two things: the order of the lead ends and the change rung at the lead end itself. For example, a method that has lead ends in the same order as Plain Bob, and which has second-place lead ends like Plain Bob, is an “a” group method (as is Plain Bob, itself). Cambridge has a first lead end that is the same as the second lead end of Plain Bob and is a “b” group method. Methods with seconds-place lead ends are in groups a g. depending on the order of the lead ends. Methods that have eighth-place lead ends are assigned to groups h m, again, depending on the order of the lead ends. One of the most popular groups, m group, is usually rung with 4ths place bobs and designated ‘mx’.<br />
<br />
In PPE, our first seven ingredients are three b group methods (Cambridge, Yorkshire, and Superlative), two f group methods (London and Lessness), one l group (Cornwall – and it’s “L” as in leather), and one “mx” method (Bristol). The Standard 8 only have three groups (b, f, and mx). Despite having one fewer method than the Standard 8, in PPE we have one more lead end group, which gives us quite a bit more flexibility.<br />
<br />
So, how do you splice them?<br />
<br />
For a simple start, you can ring seven leads of the same lead end group in any order – a plain course. For example, you can freely splice Cambridge, Superlative, and Yorkshire, all b group methods, and for more of a challenge you can freely splice the two f group methods, Lessness and London. Actually, as long as you aren’t fussed about truth, which you shouldn’t be for short touches, you can add Bristol to Lessness and London even though they are in different groups - as long as there are no bobs called, f group and mx methods have the same lead end order. <br />
<br />
From now on, we are going to abbreviate the method names. Cambridge, Yorkshire, Superlative, London and Bristol are easy: “C”, “Y”, “S”, “L”, and “B”, respectively. Lessness is usually abbreviated “E”, and Cornwall as “W”. These abbreviations are not universal, but are common enough.<br />
<br />
You can get a different length course by mixing method groups. You can do this by thinking about what place bells the tenor is ringing. For instance if you rang four leads of the b group methods, e.g. CSYS, the tenor would have become 7ths place bell. So you think to yourself “what sort of method gets you from 7ths place bell back to 8ths in one lead?” The answer is any f group or mx method – London, Lessness or Bristol. So it is worth remembering that a single lead of an f group or mx method, plus four leads of b group methods, comes round, and that you can ring them in any order. <br />
<br />
Another way of thinking about that five lead course is that the f group method had the same effect as three leads of b group methods – it gets the tenor to the same place. So you could replace three more of the leads of CY or S with another lead of, for instance, London. <br />
<br />
Then we have Cornwall where 8ths place bell becomes 4ths. How do you get from 4ths place bell back home to 8ths? Simply with one lead of Cambridge or equivalent. So there is a two lead course combining Cornwall with any of the b group methods, either way round. <br />
<br />
What course options do we have with the Starter Seven? First here is a recap of method names, their abbreviations and their groups:<br />
<br />
C Cambridge b group<br />
<br />
Y Yorkshire b group<br />
<br />
S Superlative b group<br />
<br />
W Cornwall l group<br />
<br />
B Bristol mx<br />
<br />
L London f group<br />
<br />
E Lessness f group<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
For 7 leads, Mix C Y and S in any order e.g. CYSYCYS<br />
<br />
For 7 leads Mix L E and B in any order e.g. BELBELB<br />
<br />
For 5 leads use One lead of an f group, plus four of b group e.g. LCCCC<br />
<br />
For 3 leads select Two leads of f or mx, and one b e.g. LSL<br />
<br />
For 2 leads, call Cornwall plus one b group e.g. WC<br />
<br />
Now for a complication – calls. If you make a call at Middle Wrong or Home (when the tenor becomes 6ths, 7ths and 8ths place bells respectively) in a 2nds place method the lead order is not affected because the tenor is not affected. If, however, you call a bob at the end of a lead of Cornwall or Bristol, the order does change – the tenor “jumps” on the line. In Bristol the tenor jumps back a lead and rings the same lead again. In Cornwall … have a look at it and see what it does.<br />
<br />
<br />
A simple touch comprising three bobs at Home could therefore be put together with three short courses all called differently, containing six of the PPE methods. For instance:<br />
<br />
23456 H<br />
<br />
42356 - LSE. <br />
<br />
34256 - WY.<br />
<br />
23456 - B.<br />
________<br />
<br />
It is worth getting used to how touches like this are often written out. The calling positions used are at the top (just Homes in this case). The course ends brought up at the end of the course are on the left (missing out 1 7 and 8 as they stay the same), calls made in each course are shown as dashes in the appropriate column, and each course is on a separate line. It may seem counter-intuitive, but the numbers on the left are the course end that results from calling the calls and methods to the right. <br />
<br />
So in a more wordy form this is LSE (bob) - three lead course, Superlative as middle lead will have Queens in, Lessness and London interchangeable<br />
WY (bob) – two lead course, start with Cornwall otherwise the bob messes it up<br />
B (bob) – Bristol repeats the lead so repeats the call<br />
<br />
Any course can be extended by calling a bob at the end and then adding a couple of bobbed leads of Bristol, e.g. LSL-B-B- (That’s another way of writing it – a string of letters with the bobs as dashes.) Two bobbed leads of Bristol at the end is nice because they contain a few 5678 roll ups. So just with short courses and bobs at Home you have lots of good practice options. <br />
<br />
As a composer/conductor, you expand your repertoire of callings for short touches. Then all you then need to do is use combinations of methods that will get you to those calling positions. For practice touches we don’t tend to worry about truth, so all we need to do is work out how to get back to rounds by combining methods with different lead-end orders with callings that would come round if rung to a single method. <br />
<br />
Touches worth knowing are:<br />
<br />
3H or 3W<br />
<br />
sH sH<br />
<br />
W H W H<br />
<br />
B W M<br />
<br />
I will more often that not use W H W H for a shortish touch, particularly if I am wanting to test changing direction in and out of London. That would be <br />
<br />
LS-L- <br />
<br />
LC-L-<br />
<br />
<br />
Don Morrison has offered the following options showing how these touches can be used to combine the PPE methods. An s in a column denotes a Single, with the dash used for Bobs.<br />
<br />
23456 H<br />
________<br />
24356 s WC.<br />
23456 s YCYCW.<br />
________<br />
<br />
23456 H<br />
________<br />
<br />
42356 - EYE.<br />
<br />
34256 - WC.<br />
<br />
23456 - WY.<br />
<br />
________<br />
<br />
23456 H<br />
________<br />
24356 s ESE.<br />
23456 s WLWBW.<br />
________<br />
<br />
23456 H<br />
________<br />
24356 s B.<br />
32456 - EWWLE.<br />
(23456) BS(E)<br />
________<br />
<br />
23456 H<br />
_________<br />
24356 s WS.<br />
32456 - LCE.<br />
(32456) BY(Y)<br />
_________<br />
<br />
Those two touches will come round after two rows of the method in brackets, i.e. at the treble backstroke snap with the tenor is 7ths place bell.<br />
<br />
23456 B W M<br />
______________ <br />
23456 - - - CY.EL.WB.SE<br />
______________<br />
<br />
A different calling introduced here, with a bob before (tenor runs out). Note that this is the lead of Superlative with Queens in because after the three bobs you are back in the plain course. <br />
<br />
<br />
23456 W B H<br />
_______________<br />
52436 - LS.B<br />
25364 - s WE.CY.(S)<br />
_______________<br />
<br />
<br />
23456<br />
______________________<br />
(32456) sB,sB,sF,B,V,B SC.B.W.L.E.Y.W(C)<br />
______________________<br />
<br />
Next week I will move into the next batch of methods, including some less familiar names. Any criticism levelled at PPE so far, for instance that all it has done is dropped NPR from the Standard 8 and added Cornwall and Lessness, which are quite well known anyway, may start to disappear.</div>SJLhttps://wiki.changeringing.co.uk/index.php?title=Project_Pickled_Egg_-_Part_13&diff=2161Project Pickled Egg - Part 132018-05-27T14:29:49Z<p>SJL: </p>
<hr />
<div>===A LITTLE BIT OF SPLICED===<br />
<br />
The first seven PPE methods, maybe to become called the Starter Seven unless someone comes up with a better moniker, may well be practiced first as whole courses, but then ringers and bands will be looking to combine them in touches of spliced. <br />
<br />
I think it is very worthwhile explaining the techniques for putting together touches of spliced rather than just offering a selection of touches that work. This skill seems to be locked in the box that only members of the conducting ‘Magic Circle’ know how to open. <br />
<br />
All the Surprise Major methods we ever ring have the same seven lead ends – the ones that come in a course of Plain Bob Major. We call them the Plain Bob lead ends. This may seem surprising, but historically methods without Plain Bob lead ends were called “irregular” and were frowned upon. Composers of methods stuck to the “regular” Plain Bob lead ends which makes composition and conducting far easier. (There are just 76 out of nearly 6000 Surprise Major methods without Plain Bob lead ends.)<br />
<br />
We can assign these methods to groups based on two things: the order of the lead ends and the change rung at the lead end itself. For example, a method that has lead ends in the same order as Plain Bob, and which has second-place lead ends like Plain Bob, is an “a” group method (as is Plain Bob, itself). Cambridge has a first lead end that is the same as the second lead end of Plain Bob and is a “b” group method. Methods with seconds-place lead ends are in groups a g. depending on the order of the lead ends. Methods that have eighth-place lead ends are assigned to groups h m, again, depending on the order of the lead ends. One of the most popular groups, m group, is usually rung with 4ths place bobs and designated ‘mx’.<br />
<br />
In PPE, our first seven ingredients are three b group methods (Cambridge, Yorkshire, and Superlative), two f group methods (London and Lessness), one l group (Cornwall – and it’s “L” as in leather), and one “mx” method (Bristol). The Standard 8 only have three groups (b, f, and mx). Despite having one fewer method than the Standard 8, in PPE we have one more lead end group, which gives us quite a bit more flexibility.<br />
<br />
So, how do you splice them?<br />
<br />
For a simple start, you can ring seven leads of the same lead end group in any order – a plain course. For example, you can freely splice Cambridge, Superlative, and Yorkshire, all b group methods, and for more of a challenge you can freely splice the two f group methods, Lessness and London. Actually, as long as you aren’t fussed about truth, which you shouldn’t be for short touches, you can add Bristol to Lessness and London even though they are in different groups - as long as there are no bobs called, f group and mx methods have the same lead end order. <br />
<br />
From now on, we are going to abbreviate the method names. Cambridge, Yorkshire, Superlative, London and Bristol are easy: “C”, “Y”, “S”, “L”, and “B”, respectively. Lessness is usually abbreviated “E”, and Cornwall as “W”. These abbreviations are not universal, but are common enough.<br />
<br />
You can get a different length course by mixing method groups. You can do this by thinking about what place bells the tenor is ringing. For instance if you rang four leads of the b group methods, e.g. CSYS, the tenor would have become 7ths place bell. So you think to yourself “what sort of method gets you from 7ths place bell back to 8ths in one lead?” The answer is any f group or mx method – London, Lessness or Bristol. So it is worth remembering that a single lead of an f group or mx method, plus four leads of b group methods, comes round, and that you can ring them in any order. <br />
<br />
Another way of thinking about that five lead course is that the f group method had the same effect as three leads of b group methods – it gets the tenor to the same place. So you could replace three more of the leads of CY or S with another lead of, for instance, London. <br />
<br />
Then we have Cornwall where 8ths place bell becomes 4ths. How do you get from 4ths place bell back home to 8ths? Simply with one lead of Cambridge or equivalent. So there is a two lead course combining Cornwall with any of the b group methods, either way round. <br />
<br />
What course options do we have with the Starter Seven? First here is a recap of method names, their abbreviations and their groups:<br />
<br />
C Cambridge b group<br />
<br />
Y Yorkshire b group<br />
<br />
S Superlative b group<br />
<br />
W Cornwall l group<br />
<br />
B Bristol mx<br />
<br />
L London f group<br />
<br />
E Lessness f group<br />
<br />
<br />
No of leads Explanation Example<br />
<br />
7 Mix C Y and S in any order CYSYCYS<br />
<br />
7 Mix L E and B in any order BELBELB<br />
<br />
5 One lead of an f group, four of b group LCCCC<br />
<br />
3 Two leads of f or mx, one b LSL<br />
<br />
2 Cornwall plus one b group WC<br />
<br />
Now for a complication – calls. If you make a call at Middle Wrong or Home (when the tenor becomes 6ths, 7ths and 8ths place bells respectively) in a 2nds place method the lead order is not affected because the tenor is not affected. If, however, you call a bob at the end of a lead of Cornwall or Bristol, the order does change – the tenor “jumps” on the line. In Bristol the tenor jumps back a lead and rings the same lead again. In Cornwall … have a look at it and see what it does.<br />
<br />
<br />
A simple touch comprising three bobs at Home could therefore be put together with three short courses all called differently, containing six of the PPE methods. For instance:<br />
<br />
23456 H<br />
<br />
42356 - LSE. <br />
<br />
34256 - WY.<br />
<br />
23456 - B.<br />
________<br />
<br />
It is worth getting used to how touches like this are often written out. The calling positions used are at the top (just Homes in this case). The course ends brought up at the end of the course are on the left (missing out 1 7 and 8 as they stay the same), calls made in each course are shown as dashes in the appropriate column, and each course is on a separate line. It may seem counter-intuitive, but the numbers on the left are the course end that results from calling the calls and methods to the right. <br />
<br />
So in a more wordy form this is LSE (bob) - three lead course, Superlative as middle lead will have Queens in, Lessness and London interchangeable<br />
WY (bob) – two lead course, start with Cornwall otherwise the bob messes it up<br />
B (bob) – Bristol repeats the lead so repeats the call<br />
<br />
Any course can be extended by calling a bob at the end and then adding a couple of bobbed leads of Bristol, e.g. LSL-B-B- (That’s another way of writing it – a string of letters with the bobs as dashes.) Two bobbed leads of Bristol at the end is nice because they contain a few 5678 roll ups. So just with short courses and bobs at Home you have lots of good practice options. <br />
<br />
As a composer/conductor, you expand your repertoire of callings for short touches. Then all you then need to do is use combinations of methods that will get you to those calling positions. For practice touches we don’t tend to worry about truth, so all we need to do is work out how to get back to rounds by combining methods with different lead-end orders with callings that would come round if rung to a single method. <br />
<br />
Touches worth knowing are:<br />
<br />
3H or 3W<br />
<br />
sH sH<br />
<br />
W H W H<br />
<br />
B W M<br />
<br />
I will more often that not use W H W H for a shortish touch, particularly if I am wanting to test changing direction in and out of London. That would be <br />
<br />
LS-L- <br />
<br />
LC-L-<br />
<br />
<br />
Don Morrison has offered the following options showing how these touches can be used to combine the PPE methods. An s in a column denotes a Single, with the dash used for Bobs.<br />
<br />
23456 H<br />
________<br />
24356 s WC.<br />
23456 s YCYCW.<br />
________<br />
<br />
23456 H<br />
________<br />
<br />
42356 - EYE.<br />
<br />
34256 - WC.<br />
<br />
23456 - WY.<br />
<br />
________<br />
<br />
23456 H<br />
________<br />
24356 s ESE.<br />
23456 s WLWBW.<br />
________<br />
<br />
23456 H<br />
________<br />
24356 s B.<br />
32456 - EWWLE.<br />
(23456) BS(E)<br />
________<br />
<br />
23456 H<br />
_________<br />
24356 s WS.<br />
32456 - LCE.<br />
(32456) BY(Y)<br />
_________<br />
<br />
Those two touches will come round after two rows of the method in brackets, i.e. at the treble backstroke snap with the tenor is 7ths place bell.<br />
<br />
23456 B W M<br />
______________ <br />
23456 - - - CY.EL.WB.SE<br />
______________<br />
<br />
A different calling introduced here, with a bob before (tenor runs out). Note that this is the lead of Superlative with Queens in because after the three bobs you are back in the plain course. <br />
<br />
<br />
23456 W B H<br />
_______________<br />
52436 - LS.B<br />
25364 - s WE.CY.(S)<br />
_______________<br />
<br />
<br />
23456<br />
______________________<br />
(32456) sB,sB,sF,B,V,B SC.B.W.L.E.Y.W(C)<br />
______________________<br />
<br />
Next week I will move into the next batch of methods, including some less familiar names. Any criticism levelled at PPE so far, for instance that all it has done is dropped NPR from the Standard 8 and added Cornwall and Lessness, which are quite well known anyway, may start to disappear.</div>SJLhttps://wiki.changeringing.co.uk/index.php?title=Project_Pickled_Egg_-_Part_13&diff=2160Project Pickled Egg - Part 132018-05-27T14:28:35Z<p>SJL: </p>
<hr />
<div>===A LITTLE BIT OF SPLICED===<br />
<br />
The first seven PPE methods, maybe to become called the Starter Seven unless someone comes up with a better moniker, may well be practiced first as whole courses, but then ringers and bands will be looking to combine them in touches of spliced. <br />
<br />
I think it is very worthwhile explaining the techniques for putting together touches of spliced rather than just offering a selection of touches that work. This skill seems to be locked in the box that only members of the conducting ‘Magic Circle’ know how to open. <br />
<br />
All the Surprise Major methods we ever ring have the same seven lead ends – the ones that come in a course of Plain Bob Major. We call them the Plain Bob lead ends. This may seem surprising, but historically methods without Plain Bob lead ends were called “irregular” and were frowned upon. Composers of methods stuck to the “regular” Plain Bob lead ends which makes composition and conducting far easier. (There are just 76 out of nearly 6000 Surprise Major methods without Plain Bob lead ends.)<br />
<br />
We can assign these methods to groups based on two things: the order of the lead ends and the change rung at the lead end itself. For example, a method that has lead ends in the same order as Plain Bob, and which has second-place lead ends like Plain Bob, is an “a” group method (as is Plain Bob, itself). Cambridge has a first lead end that is the same as the second lead end of Plain Bob and is a “b” group method. Methods with seconds-place lead ends are in groups a g. depending on the order of the lead ends. Methods that have eighth-place lead ends are assigned to groups h m, again, depending on the order of the lead ends. One of the most popular groups, m group, is usually rung with 4ths place bobs and designated ‘mx’.<br />
<br />
In PPE, our first seven ingredients are three b group methods (Cambridge, Yorkshire, and Superlative), two f group methods (London and Lessness), one l group (Cornwall – and it’s “L” as in leather), and one “mx” method (Bristol). The Standard 8 only have three groups (b, f, and mx). Despite having one fewer method than the Standard 8, in PPE we have one more lead end group, which gives us quite a bit more flexibility.<br />
<br />
So, how do you splice them?<br />
<br />
For a simple start, you can ring seven leads of the same lead end group in any order – a plain course. For example, you can freely splice Cambridge, Superlative, and Yorkshire, all b group methods, and for more of a challenge you can freely splice the two f group methods, Lessness and London. Actually, as long as you aren’t fussed about truth, which you shouldn’t be for short touches, you can add Bristol to Lessness and London even though they are in different groups - as long as there are no bobs called, f group and mx methods have the same lead end order. <br />
<br />
From now on, we are going to abbreviate the method names. Cambridge, Yorkshire, Superlative, London and Bristol are easy: “C”, “Y”, “S”, “L”, and “B”, respectively. Lessness is usually abbreviated “E”, and Cornwall as “W”. These abbreviations are not universal, but are common enough.<br />
<br />
You can get a different length course by mixing method groups. You can do this by thinking about what place bells the tenor is ringing. For instance if you rang four leads of the b group methods, e.g. CSYS, the tenor would have become 7ths place bell. So you think to yourself “what sort of method gets you from 7ths place bell back to 8ths in one lead?” The answer is any f group or mx method – London, Lessness or Bristol. So it is worth remembering that a single lead of an f group or mx method, plus four leads of b group methods, comes round, and that you can ring them in any order. <br />
<br />
Another way of thinking about that five lead course is that the f group method had the same effect as three leads of b group methods – it gets the tenor to the same place. So you could replace three more of the leads of CY or S with another lead of, for instance, London. <br />
<br />
Then we have Cornwall where 8ths place bell becomes 4ths. How do you get from 4ths place bell back home to 8ths? Simply with one lead of Cambridge or equivalent. So there is a two lead course combining Cornwall with any of the b group methods, either way round. <br />
<br />
What course options do we have with the Starter Seven? First here is a recap of method names, their abbreviations and their groups:<br />
<br />
C Cambridge b group<br />
<br />
Y Yorkshire b group<br />
<br />
S Superlative b group<br />
<br />
W Cornwall l group<br />
<br />
B Bristol mx<br />
<br />
L London f group<br />
<br />
E Lessness f group<br />
<br />
<br />
No of leads Explanation Example<br />
7 Mix C Y and S in any order CYSYCYS<br />
7 Mix L E and B in any order BELBELB<br />
5 One lead of an f group, four of b group LCCCC<br />
3 Two leads of f or mx, one b LSL<br />
2 Cornwall plus one b group WC<br />
<br />
Now for a complication – calls. If you make a call at Middle Wrong or Home (when the tenor becomes 6ths, 7ths and 8ths place bells respectively) in a 2nds place method the lead order is not affected because the tenor is not affected. If, however, you call a bob at the end of a lead of Cornwall or Bristol, the order does change – the tenor “jumps” on the line. In Bristol the tenor jumps back a lead and rings the same lead again. In Cornwall … have a look at it and see what it does.<br />
<br />
<br />
A simple touch comprising three bobs at Home could therefore be put together with three short courses all called differently, containing six of the PPE methods. For instance:<br />
<br />
23456 H<br />
<br />
42356 - LSE. <br />
<br />
34256 - WY.<br />
<br />
23456 - B.<br />
________<br />
<br />
It is worth getting used to how touches like this are often written out. The calling positions used are at the top (just Homes in this case). The course ends brought up at the end of the course are on the left (missing out 1 7 and 8 as they stay the same), calls made in each course are shown as dashes in the appropriate column, and each course is on a separate line. It may seem counter-intuitive, but the numbers on the left are the course end that results from calling the calls and methods to the right. <br />
<br />
So in a more wordy form this is LSE (bob) - three lead course, Superlative as middle lead will have Queens in, Lessness and London interchangeable<br />
WY (bob) – two lead course, start with Cornwall otherwise the bob messes it up<br />
B (bob) – Bristol repeats the lead so repeats the call<br />
<br />
Any course can be extended by calling a bob at the end and then adding a couple of bobbed leads of Bristol, e.g. LSL-B-B- (That’s another way of writing it – a string of letters with the bobs as dashes.) Two bobbed leads of Bristol at the end is nice because they contain a few 5678 roll ups. So just with short courses and bobs at Home you have lots of good practice options. <br />
<br />
As a composer/conductor, you expand your repertoire of callings for short touches. Then all you then need to do is use combinations of methods that will get you to those calling positions. For practice touches we don’t tend to worry about truth, so all we need to do is work out how to get back to rounds by combining methods with different lead-end orders with callings that would come round if rung to a single method. <br />
<br />
Touches worth knowing are:<br />
<br />
3H or 3W<br />
<br />
sH sH<br />
<br />
W H W H<br />
<br />
B W M<br />
<br />
I will more often that not use W H W H for a shortish touch, particularly if I am wanting to test changing direction in and out of London. That would be <br />
<br />
LS-L- <br />
<br />
LC-L-<br />
<br />
<br />
Don Morrison has offered the following options showing how these touches can be used to combine the PPE methods. An s in a column denotes a Single, with the dash used for Bobs.<br />
<br />
23456 H<br />
________<br />
24356 s WC.<br />
23456 s YCYCW.<br />
________<br />
<br />
23456 H<br />
________<br />
<br />
42356 - EYE.<br />
<br />
34256 - WC.<br />
<br />
23456 - WY.<br />
<br />
________<br />
<br />
23456 H<br />
________<br />
24356 s ESE.<br />
23456 s WLWBW.<br />
________<br />
<br />
23456 H<br />
________<br />
24356 s B.<br />
32456 - EWWLE.<br />
(23456) BS(E)<br />
________<br />
<br />
23456 H<br />
_________<br />
24356 s WS.<br />
32456 - LCE.<br />
(32456) BY(Y)<br />
_________<br />
<br />
Those two touches will come round after two rows of the method in brackets, i.e. at the treble backstroke snap with the tenor is 7ths place bell.<br />
<br />
23456 B W M<br />
______________ <br />
23456 - - - CY.EL.WB.SE<br />
______________<br />
<br />
A different calling introduced here, with a bob before (tenor runs out). Note that this is the lead of Superlative with Queens in because after the three bobs you are back in the plain course. <br />
<br />
<br />
23456 W B H<br />
_______________<br />
52436 - LS.B<br />
25364 - s WE.CY.(S)<br />
_______________<br />
<br />
<br />
23456<br />
______________________<br />
(32456) sB,sB,sF,B,V,B SC.B.W.L.E.Y.W(C)<br />
______________________<br />
<br />
Next week I will move into the next batch of methods, including some less familiar names. Any criticism levelled at PPE so far, for instance that all it has done is dropped NPR from the Standard 8 and added Cornwall and Lessness, which are quite well known anyway, may start to disappear.</div>SJLhttps://wiki.changeringing.co.uk/index.php?title=Project_Pickled_Egg_-_Part_15&diff=2159Project Pickled Egg - Part 152018-05-27T14:13:28Z<p>SJL: </p>
<hr />
<div>===[https://complib.org/method/20901 ''Lancashire Surprise Major'']===<br />
<br />
The rivalry between Yorkshire and Lancashire exists in many fields of endeavour, but when it comes to eponymous Surprise Major methods, the contest is a difficult one to judge. Yorkshire scores for longevity and ease of ringing but is a bit dull, while Lancashire is a much more interesting and exciting affair. If I were to return to the larder of ingredients analogy, while Yorkshire might be a staple of butter or flour, Lancashire is something like chorizo – tasty on its own but even better for spicing up other dishes.<br />
<br />
Lancashire Surprise Major is not well known outside the peal ringing fraternity, but was a strong suggestion for inclusion by the initial core group developing this project. <br />
<br />
Arguments for inclusion:<br />
<br />
• It’s a great method to think about structure. And for someone who knows Bristol, it’s quite useful as it is a sort of ‘inside-out’ Bristol.<br />
<br />
• It’s also good for thinking about “how it works” when you’re ringing it, and encouraging ringers away from rote blueline memorization.<br />
<br />
• The a group lead end order, while familiar from Plain Bob, is a surprisingly under-utilized lead end order in spliced, and an excellent one to add to the mix.<br />
<br />
• Clean proof scale to aid composers.<br />
<br />
• Like London, learning to negotiate the changes of method into and out of it in spliced teaches a useful skill.<br />
<br />
<br />
Those who have rung Norman Smith’s 23 Spliced will see familiarity in Lancashire because it is Whalley above the treble, but it also has the Whalley above work below the treble as well – a double method with rotational symmetry. It has similarities with Bristol, having the line of Bristol just started one blow later – difficult to explain but if you compare the grids and you will see that the bells in 5ths and 8ths place lie still, 67 cross, and then you have the Bristol starts. So if it is a bit like Bristol but not better, is it worth including, and what value is it adding? <br />
<br />
I don’t think many ringers when learning Whalley say to themselves “ooh this is like Bristol”. They see the similarities of bits of line but it feels different. I have always seen methods like this, that start with the notation 58x58.14, as being a group in their own right, rather than as some sort of Bristol variation. For me they sit alongside, and can get confused with, methods like Sussex which start 38x58.14 and have similar lines above the treble.<br />
<br />
Although Lancashire has not been rung as a single method that often (it was first pealed in 1922) it has been used by composers of spliced. Colin Wyld used it as one of the methods for his ground-breaking 6-part all-the-work composition of [http://www.cantabgold.net/users/pje24/wyld24.pdf ''24 spliced''] composed in the 1980s. This is, I think, the only Surprise Major composition that is ring by above and below works rather than by learning 24 lines – there are three above works, of which Lancashire is one (Premier and Stanton are the other two), and eight below works. It is firmly at the non-trivial end of the spectrum and has not been rung very often!<br />
<br />
Don Morrison has used Lancashire and exploited its musical properties in lots of his compositions of spliced, and there are excellent compositions of 23 Spliced by both Don and Philip Earis that include Lancashire (and plenty of other PPE methods). However I realise that in discussing such compositions I am straying away from reality for most readers, and I am only trying to emphasize the fact that highly regarded composers use methods for good reason, and Lancashire is one that get used. If there was a composition of 23 Spliced to aspire to, it is more likely to have Lancashire in it than Whalley.<br />
<br />
For quarter peal compositions, a simple six homes isn’t a disaster, (2p 2s 2p b) x6 is better, or you could try this rather more ambitious offering:<br />
<br />
1280 Lancashire Surprise Major<br />
Composed by Mark B Davies<br />
23456 W V F B M H<br />
24356 s<br />
25364 – – <br />
32456 – – – ss<br />
23456 – – – – s<br />
17 5678s, 4 6578s, 38 crus, 88 4-bell runs, 176 5678 combinations, 19 8765s (7f,12b), Tittums, Backrounds.<br />
<br />
<br />
So, Lancashire is a very good method in its own right with a nice line and musical potential (sorry Yorkshire, you have lost this particular battle for me), it introduces a genuinely different above and below work, it has the special beauty of a double method, a new lead end order from previous PPE methods, and is a good method in spliced both because it is different and for its musical properties.</div>SJLhttps://wiki.changeringing.co.uk/index.php?title=Project_Pickled_Egg_-_Part_15&diff=2158Project Pickled Egg - Part 152018-05-27T14:10:58Z<p>SJL: </p>
<hr />
<div>===[https://complib.org/method/20901 ''Lancashire Surprise Major'']===<br />
<br />
The rivalry between Yorkshire and Lancashire exists in many fields of endeavour, but when it comes to eponymous Surprise Major methods, the contest is a difficult one to judge. Yorkshire scores for longevity and ease of ringing but is a bit dull, while Lancashire is a much more interesting and exciting affair. If I were to return to the larder of ingredients analogy, while Yorkshire might be a staple of butter or flour, Lancashire is something like chorizo – tasty on its own but even better for spicing up other dishes.<br />
<br />
Lancashire Surprise Major is not well known outside the peal ringing fraternity, but was a strong suggestion for inclusion by the initial core group developing this project. <br />
<br />
Arguments for inclusion:<br />
<br />
• It’s a great method to think about structure. And for someone who knows Bristol, it’s quite useful as it is a sort of ‘inside-out’ Bristol.<br />
<br />
• It’s also good for thinking about “how it works” when you’re ringing it, and encouraging ringers away from rote blueline memorization.<br />
<br />
• The a group lead end order, while familiar from Plain Bob, is a surprisingly under-utilized lead end order in spliced, and an excellent one to add to the mix.<br />
<br />
• Clean proof scale to aid composers.<br />
<br />
• Like London, learning to negotiate the changes of method into and out of it in spliced teaches a useful skill.<br />
<br />
<br />
Those who have rung Norman Smith’s 23 Spliced will see familiarity in Lancashire because it is Whalley above the treble, but it also has the Whalley above work below the treble as well – a double method with rotational symmetry. It has similarities with Bristol, having the line of Bristol just started one blow later – difficult to explain but if you compare the grids and you will see that the bells in 5ths and 8ths place lie still, 67 cross, and then you have the Bristol starts. So if it is a bit like Bristol but not better, is it worth including, and what value is it adding? <br />
<br />
I don’t think many ringers when learning Whalley say to themselves “ooh this is like Bristol”. They see the similarities of bits of line but it feels different. I have always seen methods like this, that start with the notation 58x58.14, as being a group in their own right, rather than as some sort of Bristol variation. For me they sit alongside, and can get confused with, methods like Sussex which start 38x58.14 and have similar lines above the treble.<br />
<br />
Although Lancashire has not been rung as a single method that often (it was first pealed in 1922) it has been used by composers of spliced. Colin Wyld used it as one of the methods for his ground-breaking 6-part all-the-work composition of 24 spliced composed in the 1980s. This is, I think, the only Surprise Major composition that is ring by above and below works rather than by learning 24 lines – there are three above works, of which Lancashire is one (Premier and Stanton are the other two), and eight below works. It is firmly at the non-trivial end of the spectrum and has not been rung very often!<br />
<br />
Don Morrison has used Lancashire and exploited its musical properties in lots of his compositions of spliced, and there are excellent compositions of 23 Spliced by both Don and Philip Earis that include Lancashire (and plenty of other PPE methods). However I realise that in discussing such compositions I am straying away from reality for most readers, and I am only trying to emphasize the fact that highly regarded composers use methods for good reason, and Lancashire is one that get used. If there was a composition of 23 Spliced to aspire to, it is more likely to have Lancashire in it than Whalley.<br />
<br />
For quarter peal compositions, a simple six homes isn’t a disaster, (2p 2s 2p b) x6 is better, or you could try this rather more ambitious offering:<br />
<br />
1280 Lancashire Surprise Major<br />
Composed by Mark B Davies<br />
23456 W V F B M H<br />
24356 s<br />
25364 – – <br />
32456 – – – ss<br />
23456 – – – – s<br />
17 5678s, 4 6578s, 38 crus, 88 4-bell runs, 176 5678 combinations, 19 8765s (7f,12b), Tittums, Backrounds.<br />
<br />
<br />
So, Lancashire is a very good method in its own right with a nice line and musical potential (sorry Yorkshire, you have lost this particular battle for me), it introduces a genuinely different above and below work, it has the special beauty of a double method, a new lead end order from previous PPE methods, and is a good method in spliced both because it is different and for its musical properties.</div>SJLhttps://wiki.changeringing.co.uk/index.php?title=Project_Pickled_Egg_-_Part_15&diff=2157Project Pickled Egg - Part 152018-05-27T14:10:34Z<p>SJL: Created page with "===[https://complib.org/method/20901 ''Lancashire Surprise Major'']=== The rivalry between Yorkshire and Lancashire exists in many fields of endeavour, but when it comes to e..."</p>
<hr />
<div>===[https://complib.org/method/20901 ''Lancashire Surprise Major'']===<br />
<br />
The rivalry between Yorkshire and Lancashire exists in many fields of endeavour, but when it comes to eponymous Surprise Major methods, the contest is a difficult one to judge. Yorkshire scores for longevity and ease of ringing but is a bit dull, while Lancashire is a much more interesting and exciting affair. If I were to return to the larder of ingredients analogy, while Yorkshire might be a staple of butter or flour, Lancashire is something like chorizo – tasty on its own but even better for spicing up other dishes.<br />
<br />
Lancashire Surprise Major is not well known outside the peal ringing fraternity, but was a strong suggestion for inclusion by the initial core group developing this project. <br />
<br />
Arguments for inclusion:<br />
<br />
• It’s a great method to think about structure. And for someone who knows Bristol, it’s quite useful as it is a sort of ‘inside-out’ Bristol.<br />
<br />
• It’s also good for thinking about “how it works” when you’re ringing it, and encouraging ringers away from rote blueline memorization.<br />
<br />
• The a group lead end order, while familiar from Plain Bob, is a surprisingly under-utilized lead end order in spliced, and an excellent one to add to the mix.<br />
<br />
• Clean proof scale to aid composers.<br />
<br />
• Like London, learning to negotiate the changes of method into and out of it in spliced teaches a useful skill.<br />
<br />
<br />
Those who have rung Norman Smith’s 23 Spliced will see familiarity in Lancashire because it is Whalley above the treble, but it also has the Whalley above work below the treble as well – a double method with rotational symmetry. It has similarities with Bristol, having the line of Bristol just started one blow later – difficult to explain but if you compare the grids and you will see that the bells in 5ths and 8ths place lie still, 67 cross, and then you have the Bristol starts. So if it is a bit like Bristol but not better, is it worth including, and what value is it adding? <br />
<br />
I don’t think many ringers when learning Whalley say to themselves “ooh this is like Bristol”. They see the similarities of bits of line but it feels different. I have always seen methods like this, that start with the notation 58x58.14, as being a group in their own right, rather than as some sort of Bristol variation. For me they sit alongside, and can get confused with, methods like Sussex which start 38x58.14 and have similar lines above the treble.<br />
<br />
Although Lancashire has not been rung as a single method that often (it was first pealed in 1922) it has been used by composers of spliced. Colin Wyld used it as one of the methods for his ground-breaking 6-part all-the-work composition of 24 spliced composed in the 1980s. This is, I think, the only Surprise Major composition that is ring by above and below works rather than by learning 24 lines – there are three above works, of which Lancashire is one (Premier and Stanton are the other two), and eight below works. It is firmly at the non-trivial end of the spectrum and has not been rung very often!<br />
<br />
Don Morrison has used Lancashire and exploited its musical properties in lots of his compositions of spliced, and there are excellent compositions of 23 Spliced by both Don and Philip Earis that include Lancashire (and plenty of other PPE methods). However I realise that in discussing such compositions I am straying away from reality for most readers, and I am only trying to emphasize the fact that highly regarded composers use methods for good reason, and Lancashire is one that get used. If there was a composition of 23 Spliced to aspire to, it is more likely to have Lancashire in it than Whalley.<br />
<br />
For quarter peal compositions, a simple six homes isn’t a disaster, (2p 2s 2p b) x6 is better, or you could try this rather more ambitious offering:<br />
<br />
1280 Lancashire Surprise Major<br />
Composed by Mark B Davies<br />
23456 W V F B M H<br />
24356 S<br />
25364 – – <br />
32456 – – – Ss<br />
23456 – – – – S<br />
17 5678s, 4 6578s, 38 crus, 88 4-bell runs, 176 5678 combinations, 19 8765s (7f,12b), Tittums, Backrounds.<br />
<br />
<br />
So, Lancashire is a very good method in its own right with a nice line and musical potential (sorry Yorkshire, you have lost this particular battle for me), it introduces a genuinely different above and below work, it has the special beauty of a double method, a new lead end order from previous PPE methods, and is a good method in spliced both because it is different and for its musical properties.</div>SJLhttps://wiki.changeringing.co.uk/index.php?title=Project_Pickled_Egg&diff=2156Project Pickled Egg2018-05-27T14:09:06Z<p>SJL: </p>
<hr />
<div>Project Pickled Egg aims to develop properly a new set of Core Surprise Major methods to replace the Standard 8, with the degree of thought, consultation and follow-up resource that could have traction. It was created by Simon Linford and is explored through a series of articles in the Ringing World that are repeated here.<br />
<br />
* [[Project Pickled Egg - Part 1]] - Background<br />
* [[Project Pickled Egg - Part 2]] - Where did the Standard 8 come from?<br />
* [[Project Pickled Egg - Part 3]] - Core Principles<br />
* [[Project Pickled Egg - Part 4]] - Cambridge<br />
* [[Project Pickled Egg - Part 5]] - Yorkshire<br />
* [[Project Pickled Egg - Part 6]] - Cornwall<br />
* [[Project Pickled Egg - Part 7]] - Superlative<br />
* [[Project Pickled Egg - Part 8]] - Dustbin Week!<br />
* [[Project Pickled Egg - Part 9]] - Bristol<br />
* [[Project Pickled Egg - Part 10]] - Lessness<br />
* [[Project Pickled Egg - Part 11]] - London<br />
* [[Project Pickled Egg - Part 12]] - The "Starter Seven"<br />
* [[Project Pickled Egg - Part 13]] - A little bit of spliced<br />
* [[Project Pickled Egg - Part 14]] - Deva<br />
* [[Project Pickled Egg - Part 15]] - Lancashire<br />
<br />
<br />
to be continued ...</div>SJLhttps://wiki.changeringing.co.uk/index.php?title=Project_Pickled_Egg_-_Part_14&diff=2155Project Pickled Egg - Part 142018-05-27T14:05:43Z<p>SJL: Created page with "===[https://complib.org/method/18970 ''Deva Surprise Major'']=== I am now starting on an as yet undefined number of methods which progress beyond the Starter Seven. Most of t..."</p>
<hr />
<div>===[https://complib.org/method/18970 ''Deva Surprise Major'']===<br />
<br />
I am now starting on an as yet undefined number of methods which progress beyond the Starter Seven. Most of them will be progressive in that they will introduce something that has not been met before such as a new above work, a different structure, or a challenge to the way one learns or rings methods. The first seven methods have merit as a group and a target in themselves, but they are really only a gateway to the world of Surprise Major, which offers much more to discover and enjoy. <br />
<br />
The first new method for consideration is Deva Surprise Major. <br />
<br />
Arguments for inclusion:<br />
<br />
• The way it is constructed from existing known methods (Bristol, Superlative) makes it very good for understanding method construction, and presents a great challenge for ringers piecing together sections of methods they know and ending up with something that feels completely different <br />
<br />
• It introduces a new lead end group<br />
<br />
• The plain course is very musical <br />
<br />
• Calling three bobs at Home is a lead shorter than the plain course, and absolutely packed with attractive rows<br />
<br />
• The falseness is unusual, but not particularly constraining<br />
<br />
• Very useful in spliced compositions<br />
<br />
<br />
On the face of it, Deva is not any more difficult than anything that has gone before, being made up of Bristol above the treble and Superlative below. It might not look like Superlative from the blue line, but all that has changed is that instead of 7ths being made under the treble at the half-lead, 1sts place is made and other bells plain hunt rather than dodge. Anyone who knows Bristol and Superlative, and also knows which dodges in Superlative are happening when the treble is making 8ths, can in theory ring Deva unencumbered by another blue line. In theory… <br />
<br />
Ringing methods by above and below works is something regularly practised in Minor ringing. It is a very efficient way of being able to learn and ring lots of methods, especially when combined with an awareness of where the half-lead is, and how to adapt to different places being made at that point. Ringing this way is not common in Surprise Major because too many of the methods resulting from combining some above and below works either wouldn’t be any good or wouldn’t work at all. <br />
<br />
Deva is an exception because its constituent parts are well known and so it can be rung as Superlative below Bristol. However some ringers who have learned and rung Deva without seeing the Superlative didn’t find the below work very difficult to learn anyway. Project Pickled Egg is aiming to encourage an appreciation of method structure, and so being able to see that Deva is Superlative below is good. If it also gives an awareness of where the half-lead dodges are in Superlative – even better. <br />
If you have never rung a method by above and below, how do you do it? In the same way that learning place bells enables you to switch methods at a lead end, the key to above and below is to learn all the places on the blue line or in the structure where you meet the treble, either dodging with it or passing it. Then you switch to the same point on the other method. This may seem as though a lot more knowledge is needed, but there is much to be gained from learning a method including where the treble passing points are anyway, and is why the most decent blue lines show the treble as well. <br />
<br />
I confess that the first time I rang a course of Deva, knowing its structure but not its line, I wish I had spent a little bit of time in advance working out what would happen in practice – fortunately others fired it out before my own lack of preparation became apparent! My suggestion therefore is to learn the line if you have to, but try and see the Bristol, the Superlative, and the effect of the 18 half-lead, as you are ringing it. You may soon be liberated from the ‘crutch’ of the blue line. <br />
<br />
Deva is a j group method, typically rung with a 4ths place bob. Just like in Bristol, a 4ths place bob when called in an 8ths place method causes all the bells above 4ths place to dodge at the lead end when they otherwise wouldn’t, with the bells in 2nds and 3rds unaffected. In Bristol the bob causes the bells above 4ths to repeat the lead they have just rung. In Deva the call causes the last two leads to be repeated – the tenor ‘jumps’ back two leads on the blue line and rings them again. This makes j group methods particularly attractive. Anthony Barnfield described it thus on the PPE Facebook group “Deva is excellent for shunt and pad compositions. You shunt the bells into whatever position you fancy (2468s or 8765s, whatever) and then you can pad with blocks of three (or more) using fourths place calls at alternate leads. Within the two leads whatever you are getting at the back you get off the front.” This is a method that is not only intrinsically musical, but its lead-end group enables that to be exploited to good effect. <br />
<br />
For each of these additional methods I am going to offer one or two quarter peal compositions. The first one, suggested by Anthony Barnfield, exploits the ‘shunt and pad’ property explained above. It might look complex but a straightforward option is to ring the 4th and call yourself 5ths, 7ths, In, Out, Make – a four-part with singles halfway and end on the Makes. The ‘In Out Make’ section (the sets of 3 Middles and Homes below for the tenor) is repeating pairs of musical leads to generate the 5678 combinations. <br />
<br />
1280 Deva Surprise Major,<br />
Arr AJB (SMC32)<br />
234567 B 2 H 4 M V <br />
(372546) - - <br />
(372546) 3 <br />
436257 - <br />
324567 - 3* <br />
2 part<br />
3* = b b s<br />
Contains all 24 each 5678 and 8765 off front and back, 256 combinations of 5678 off the back, 192 combinations of 5678 off the front, 24 1234s off front and back, and 18 4321s off front and back<br />
<br />
Another option<br />
<br />
1,344 Deva Surprise Major<br />
Donald F Morrison<br />
23456 B H<br />
24356 s<br />
43625 - a<br />
34256 - s<br />
Repeat twice.<br />
a = V,M,F.<br />
Contains all 24 each 56s and 5678s off the front, 12 each 65s, 8765s, 8756s and 8765s off the front, 6 each 6578s off the front and 8756s off the front, and back rounds, and is all the work.<br />
<br />
<br />
Venusium is a ‘try also’ alongside Deva. Venusium is just Dublin above rather than Bristol, and is at least as good as Deva. Mark Davies has used Venusium to good effect in his challenging compositions of 10-spliced which he called “the Renaissance 10.” <br />
<br />
I know a local band that has Deva on their standard methods list, and I have made it the special method for tours. It is well worth trying to persuade others to look at it as any band should enjoy ringing Deva.</div>SJLhttps://wiki.changeringing.co.uk/index.php?title=Project_Pickled_Egg&diff=2154Project Pickled Egg2018-05-27T14:02:01Z<p>SJL: </p>
<hr />
<div>Project Pickled Egg aims to develop properly a new set of Core Surprise Major methods to replace the Standard 8, with the degree of thought, consultation and follow-up resource that could have traction. It was created by Simon Linford and is explored through a series of articles in the Ringing World that are repeated here.<br />
<br />
* [[Project Pickled Egg - Part 1]] - Background<br />
* [[Project Pickled Egg - Part 2]] - Where did the Standard 8 come from?<br />
* [[Project Pickled Egg - Part 3]] - Core Principles<br />
* [[Project Pickled Egg - Part 4]] - Cambridge<br />
* [[Project Pickled Egg - Part 5]] - Yorkshire<br />
* [[Project Pickled Egg - Part 6]] - Cornwall<br />
* [[Project Pickled Egg - Part 7]] - Superlative<br />
* [[Project Pickled Egg - Part 8]] - Dustbin Week!<br />
* [[Project Pickled Egg - Part 9]] - Bristol<br />
* [[Project Pickled Egg - Part 10]] - Lessness<br />
* [[Project Pickled Egg - Part 11]] - London<br />
* [[Project Pickled Egg - Part 12]] - The "Starter Seven"<br />
* [[Project Pickled Egg - Part 13]] - A little bit of spliced<br />
* [[Project Pickled Egg - Part 14]] - Deva<br />
<br />
to be continued ...</div>SJLhttps://wiki.changeringing.co.uk/index.php?title=Project_Pickled_Egg_-_Part_13&diff=2153Project Pickled Egg - Part 132018-05-27T13:59:35Z<p>SJL: </p>
<hr />
<div>===A LITTLE BIT OF SPLICED===<br />
<br />
The first seven PPE methods, maybe to become called the Starter Seven unless someone comes up with a better moniker, may well be practiced first as whole courses, but then ringers and bands will be looking to combine them in touches of spliced. <br />
<br />
I think it is very worthwhile explaining the techniques for putting together touches of spliced rather than just offering a selection of touches that work. This skill seems to be locked in the box that only members of the conducting ‘Magic Circle’ know how to open. <br />
<br />
All the Surprise Major methods we ever ring have the same seven lead ends – the ones that come in a course of Plain Bob Major. We call them the Plain Bob lead ends. This may seem surprising, but historically methods without Plain Bob lead ends were called “irregular” and were frowned upon. Composers of methods stuck to the “regular” Plain Bob lead ends which makes composition and conducting far easier. (There are just 76 out of nearly 6000 Surprise Major methods without Plain Bob lead ends.)<br />
<br />
We can assign these methods to groups based on two things: the order of the lead ends and the change rung at the lead end itself. For example, a method that has lead ends in the same order as Plain Bob, and which has second-place lead ends like Plain Bob, is an “a” group method (as is Plain Bob, itself). Cambridge has a first lead end that is the same as the second lead end of Plain Bob and is a “b” group method. Methods with seconds-place lead ends are in groups a g. depending on the order of the lead ends. Methods that have eighth-place lead ends are assigned to groups h m, again, depending on the order of the lead ends. One of the most popular groups, m group, is usually rung with 4ths place bobs and designated ‘mx’.<br />
<br />
In PPE, our first seven ingredients are three b group methods (Cambridge, Yorkshire, and Superlative), two f group methods (London and Lessness), one l group (Cornwall – and it’s “L” as in leather), and one “mx” method (Bristol). The Standard 8 only have three groups (b, f, and mx). Despite having one fewer method than the Standard 8, in PPE we have one more lead end group, which gives us quite a bit more flexibility.<br />
<br />
So, how do you splice them?<br />
<br />
For a simple start, you can ring seven leads of the same lead end group in any order – a plain course. For example, you can freely splice Cambridge, Superlative, and Yorkshire, all b group methods, and for more of a challenge you can freely splice the two f group methods, Lessness and London. Actually, as long as you aren’t fussed about truth, which you shouldn’t be for short touches, you can add Bristol to Lessness and London even though they are in different groups - as long as there are no bobs called, f group and mx methods have the same lead end order. <br />
<br />
From now on, we are going to abbreviate the method names. Cambridge, Yorkshire, Superlative, London and Bristol are easy: “C”, “Y”, “S”, “L”, and “B”, respectively. Lessness is usually abbreviated “E”, and Cornwall as “W”. These abbreviations are not universal, but are common enough.<br />
<br />
You can get a different length course by mixing method groups. You can do this by thinking about what place bells the tenor is ringing. For instance if you rang four leads of the b group methods, e.g. CSYS, the tenor would have become 7ths place bell. So you think to yourself “what sort of method gets you from 7ths place bell back to 8ths in one lead?” The answer is any f group or mx method – London, Lessness or Bristol. So it is worth remembering that a single lead of an f group or mx method, plus four leads of b group methods, comes round, and that you can ring them in any order. <br />
<br />
Another way of thinking about that five lead course is that the f group method had the same effect as three leads of b group methods – it gets the tenor to the same place. So you could replace three more of the leads of CY or S with another lead of, for instance, London. <br />
<br />
Then we have Cornwall where 8ths place bell becomes 4ths. How do you get from 4ths place bell back home to 8ths? Simply with one lead of Cambridge or equivalent. So there is a two lead course combining Cornwall with any of the b group methods, either way round. <br />
<br />
What course options do we have with the Starter Seven? First here is a recap of method names, their abbreviations and their groups:<br />
<br />
C Cambridge b group<br />
<br />
Y Yorkshire b group<br />
<br />
S Superlative b group<br />
<br />
W Cornwall l group<br />
<br />
B Bristol mx<br />
<br />
L London f group<br />
<br />
E Lessness f group<br />
<br />
<br />
No of leads Explanation Example<br />
<br />
7 Mix C Y and S in any order CYSYCYS<br />
<br />
7 Mix L E and B in any order BELBELB<br />
<br />
5 One lead of an f group, four of b group LCCCC<br />
<br />
3 Two leads of f or mx, one b LSL<br />
<br />
2 Cornwall plus one b group WC<br />
<br />
Now for a complication – calls. If you make a call at Middle Wrong or Home (when the tenor becomes 6ths, 7ths and 8ths place bells respectively) in a 2nds place method the lead order is not affected because the tenor is not affected. If, however, you call a bob at the end of a lead of Cornwall or Bristol, the order does change – the tenor “jumps” on the line. In Bristol the tenor jumps back a lead and rings the same lead again. In Cornwall … have a look at it and see what it does.<br />
<br />
<br />
A simple touch comprising three bobs at Home could therefore be put together with three short courses all called differently, containing six of the PPE methods. For instance:<br />
<br />
23456 H<br />
<br />
42356 - LSE. <br />
<br />
34256 - WY.<br />
<br />
23456 - B.<br />
________<br />
<br />
It is worth getting used to how touches like this are often written out. The calling positions used are at the top (just Homes in this case). The course ends brought up at the end of the course are on the left (missing out 1 7 and 8 as they stay the same), calls made in each course are shown as dashes in the appropriate column, and each course is on a separate line. It may seem counter-intuitive, but the numbers on the left are the course end that results from calling the calls and methods to the right. <br />
<br />
So in a more wordy form this is LSE (bob) - three lead course, Superlative as middle lead will have Queens in, Lessness and London interchangeable<br />
WY (bob) – two lead course, start with Cornwall otherwise the bob messes it up<br />
B (bob) – Bristol repeats the lead so repeats the call<br />
<br />
Any course can be extended by calling a bob at the end and then adding a couple of bobbed leads of Bristol, e.g. LSL-B-B- (That’s another way of writing it – a string of letters with the bobs as dashes.) Two bobbed leads of Bristol at the end is nice because they contain a few 5678 roll ups. So just with short courses and bobs at Home you have lots of good practice options. <br />
<br />
As a composer/conductor, you expand your repertoire of callings for short touches. Then all you then need to do is use combinations of methods that will get you to those calling positions. For practice touches we don’t tend to worry about truth, so all we need to do is work out how to get back to rounds by combining methods with different lead-end orders with callings that would come round if rung to a single method. <br />
<br />
Touches worth knowing are:<br />
<br />
3H or 3W<br />
<br />
sH sH<br />
<br />
W H W H<br />
<br />
B W M<br />
<br />
I will more often that not use W H W H for a shortish touch, particularly if I am wanting to test changing direction in and out of London. That would be <br />
<br />
LS-L- <br />
<br />
LC-L-<br />
<br />
<br />
Don Morrison has offered the following options showing how these touches can be used to combine the PPE methods. An s in a column denotes a Single, with the dash used for Bobs.<br />
<br />
23456 H<br />
________<br />
24356 s WC.<br />
23456 s YCYCW.<br />
________<br />
<br />
23456 H<br />
________<br />
<br />
42356 - EYE.<br />
<br />
34256 - WC.<br />
<br />
23456 - WY.<br />
<br />
________<br />
<br />
23456 H<br />
________<br />
24356 s ESE.<br />
23456 s WLWBW.<br />
________<br />
<br />
23456 H<br />
________<br />
24356 s B.<br />
32456 - EWWLE.<br />
(23456) BS(E)<br />
________<br />
<br />
23456 H<br />
_________<br />
24356 s WS.<br />
32456 - LCE.<br />
(32456) BY(Y)<br />
_________<br />
<br />
Those two touches will come round after two rows of the method in brackets, i.e. at the treble backstroke snap with the tenor is 7ths place bell.<br />
<br />
23456 B W M<br />
______________ <br />
23456 - - - CY.EL.WB.SE<br />
______________<br />
<br />
A different calling introduced here, with a bob before (tenor runs out). Note that this is the lead of Superlative with Queens in because after the three bobs you are back in the plain course. <br />
<br />
<br />
23456 W B H<br />
_______________<br />
52436 - LS.B<br />
25364 - s WE.CY.(S)<br />
_______________<br />
<br />
<br />
23456<br />
______________________<br />
(32456) sB,sB,sF,B,V,B SC.B.W.L.E.Y.W(C)<br />
______________________<br />
<br />
Next week I will move into the next batch of methods, including some less familiar names. Any criticism levelled at PPE so far, for instance that all it has done is dropped NPR from the Standard 8 and added Cornwall and Lessness, which are quite well known anyway, may start to disappear.</div>SJLhttps://wiki.changeringing.co.uk/index.php?title=Project_Pickled_Egg_-_Part_13&diff=2152Project Pickled Egg - Part 132018-05-27T13:50:20Z<p>SJL: </p>
<hr />
<div>===A LITTLE BIT OF SPLICED===<br />
<br />
The first seven PPE methods, maybe to become called the Starter Seven unless someone comes up with a better moniker, may well be practiced first as whole courses, but then ringers and bands will be looking to combine them in touches of spliced. <br />
<br />
I think it is very worthwhile explaining the techniques for putting together touches of spliced rather than just offering a selection of touches that work. This skill seems to be locked in the box that only members of the conducting ‘Magic Circle’ know how to open. <br />
<br />
All the Surprise Major methods we ever ring have the same seven lead ends – the ones that come in a course of Plain Bob Major. We call them the Plain Bob lead ends. This may seem surprising, but historically methods without Plain Bob lead ends were called “irregular” and were frowned upon. Composers of methods stuck to the “regular” Plain Bob lead ends which makes composition and conducting far easier. (There are just 76 out of nearly 6000 Surprise Major methods without Plain Bob lead ends.)<br />
<br />
We can assign these methods to groups based on two things: the order of the lead ends and the change rung at the lead end itself. For example, a method that has lead ends in the same order as Plain Bob, and which has second-place lead ends like Plain Bob, is an “a” group method (as is Plain Bob, itself). Cambridge has a first lead end that is the same as the second lead end of Plain Bob and is a “b” group method. Methods with seconds-place lead ends are in groups a g. depending on the order of the lead ends. Methods that have eighth-place lead ends are assigned to groups h m, again, depending on the order of the lead ends. One of the most popular groups, m group, is usually rung with 4ths place bobs and designated ‘mx’.<br />
<br />
In PPE, our first seven ingredients are three b group methods (Cambridge, Yorkshire, and Superlative), two f group methods (London and Lessness), one l group (Cornwall – and it’s “L” as in leather), and one “mx” method (Bristol). The Standard 8 only have three groups (b, f, and mx). Despite having one fewer method than the Standard 8, in PPE we have one more lead end group, which gives us quite a bit more flexibility.<br />
<br />
So, how do you splice them?<br />
<br />
For a simple start, you can ring seven leads of the same lead end group in any order – a plain course. For example, you can freely splice Cambridge, Superlative, and Yorkshire, all b group methods, and for more of a challenge you can freely splice the two f group methods, Lessness and London. Actually, as long as you aren’t fussed about truth, which you shouldn’t be for short touches, you can add Bristol to Lessness and London even though they are in different groups - as long as there are no bobs called, f group and mx methods have the same lead end order. <br />
<br />
From now on, we are going to abbreviate the method names. Cambridge, Yorkshire, Superlative, London and Bristol are easy: “C”, “Y”, “S”, “L”, and “B”, respectively. Lessness is usually abbreviated “E”, and Cornwall as “W”. These abbreviations are not universal, but are common enough.<br />
<br />
You can get a different length course by mixing method groups. You can do this by thinking about what place bells the tenor is ringing. For instance if you rang four leads of the b group methods, e.g. CSYS, the tenor would have become 7ths place bell. So you think to yourself “what sort of method gets you from 7ths place bell back to 8ths in one lead?” The answer is any f group or mx method – London, Lessness or Bristol. So it is worth remembering that a single lead of an f group or mx method, plus four leads of b group methods, comes round, and that you can ring them in any order. <br />
<br />
Another way of thinking about that five lead course is that the f group method had the same effect as three leads of b group methods – it gets the tenor to the same place. So you could replace three more of the leads of CY or S with another lead of, for instance, London. <br />
<br />
Then we have Cornwall where 8ths place bell becomes 4ths. How do you get from 4ths place bell back home to 8ths? Simply with one lead of Cambridge or equivalent. So there is a two lead course combining Cornwall with any of the b group methods, either way round. <br />
<br />
What course options do we have with the Starter Seven? First here is a recap of method names, their abbreviations and their groups:<br />
<br />
C Cambridge b group<br />
<br />
Y Yorkshire b group<br />
<br />
S Superlative b group<br />
<br />
W Cornwall l group<br />
<br />
B Bristol mx<br />
<br />
L London f group<br />
<br />
E Lessness f group<br />
<br />
<br />
No of leads Explanation Example<br />
<br />
7 Mix C Y and S in any order CYSYCYS<br />
<br />
7 Mix L E and B in any order BELBELB<br />
<br />
5 One lead of an f group, four of b group LCCCC<br />
<br />
3 Two leads of f or mx, one b LSL<br />
<br />
2 Cornwall plus one b group WC<br />
<br />
Now for a complication – calls. If you make a call at Middle Wrong or Home (when the tenor becomes 6ths, 7ths and 8ths place bells respectively) in a 2nds place method the lead order is not affected because the tenor is not affected. If, however, you call a bob at the end of a lead of Cornwall or Bristol, the order does change – the tenor “jumps” on the line. In Bristol the tenor jumps back a lead and rings the same lead again. In Cornwall … have a look at it and see what it does.<br />
<br />
<br />
A simple touch comprising three bobs at Home could therefore be put together with three short courses all called differently, containing six of the PPE methods. For instance:<br />
<br />
23456 H<br />
________<br />
42356 - LSE. <br />
34256 - WY.<br />
23456 - B.<br />
________<br />
<br />
It is worth getting used to how touches like this are often written out. The calling positions used are at the top (just Homes in this case). The course ends brought up at the end of the course are on the left (missing out 1 7 and 8 as they stay the same), calls made in each course are shown as dashes in the appropriate column, and each course is on a separate line. It may seem counter-intuitive, but the numbers on the left are the course end that results from calling the calls and methods to the right. <br />
<br />
So in a more wordy form this is LSE (bob) - three lead course, Superlative as middle lead will have Queens in, Lessness and London interchangeable<br />
WY (bob) – two lead course, start with Cornwall otherwise the bob messes it up<br />
B (bob) – Bristol repeats the lead so repeats the call<br />
<br />
Any course can be extended by calling a bob at the end and then adding a couple of bobbed leads of Bristol, e.g. LSL-B-B- (That’s another way of writing it – a string of letters with the bobs as dashes.) Two bobbed leads of Bristol at the end is nice because they contain a few 5678 roll ups. So just with short courses and bobs at Home you have lots of good practice options. <br />
<br />
As a composer/conductor, you expand your repertoire of callings for short touches. Then all you then need to do is use combinations of methods that will get you to those calling positions. For practice touches we don’t tend to worry about truth, so all we need to do is work out how to get back to rounds by combining methods with different lead-end orders with callings that would come round if rung to a single method. <br />
<br />
Touches worth knowing are:<br />
<br />
3H or 3W<br />
<br />
sH sH<br />
<br />
W H W H<br />
<br />
B W M<br />
<br />
I will more often that not use W H W H for a shortish touch, particularly if I am wanting to test changing direction in and out of London. That would be <br />
<br />
LS-L- <br />
<br />
LC-L-<br />
<br />
<br />
Don Morrison has offered the following options showing how these touches can be used to combine the PPE methods. An s in a column denotes a Single, with the dash used for Bobs.<br />
<br />
23456 H<br />
________<br />
24356 s WC.<br />
23456 s YCYCW.<br />
________<br />
<br />
23456 H<br />
________<br />
<br />
42356 - EYE.<br />
<br />
34256 - WC.<br />
<br />
23456 - WY.<br />
<br />
________<br />
<br />
23456 H<br />
________<br />
24356 s ESE.<br />
23456 s WLWBW.<br />
________<br />
<br />
23456 H<br />
________<br />
24356 s B.<br />
32456 - EWWLE.<br />
(23456) BS(E)<br />
________<br />
<br />
23456 H<br />
_________<br />
24356 s WS.<br />
32456 - LCE.<br />
(32456) BY(Y)<br />
_________<br />
<br />
Those two touches will come round after two rows of the method in brackets, i.e. at the treble backstroke snap with the tenor is 7ths place bell.<br />
<br />
23456 B W M<br />
______________ <br />
23456 - - - CY.EL.WB.SE<br />
______________<br />
<br />
A different calling introduced here, with a bob before (tenor runs out). Note that this is the lead of Superlative with Queens in because after the three bobs you are back in the plain course. <br />
<br />
<br />
23456 W B H<br />
_______________<br />
52436 - LS.B<br />
25364 - s WE.CY.(S)<br />
_______________<br />
<br />
<br />
23456<br />
______________________<br />
(32456) sB,sB,sF,B,V,B SC.B.W.L.E.Y.W(C)<br />
______________________<br />
<br />
Next week I will move into the next batch of methods, including some less familiar names. Any criticism levelled at PPE so far, for instance that all it has done is dropped NPR from the Standard 8 and added Cornwall and Lessness, which are quite well known anyway, may start to disappear.</div>SJLhttps://wiki.changeringing.co.uk/index.php?title=Project_Pickled_Egg_-_Part_13&diff=2151Project Pickled Egg - Part 132018-05-27T13:48:26Z<p>SJL: </p>
<hr />
<div>===A LITTLE BIT OF SPLICED===<br />
<br />
The first seven PPE methods, maybe to become called the Starter Seven unless someone comes up with a better moniker, may well be practiced first as whole courses, but then ringers and bands will be looking to combine them in touches of spliced. <br />
<br />
I think it is very worthwhile explaining the techniques for putting together touches of spliced rather than just offering a selection of touches that work. This skill seems to be locked in the box that only members of the conducting ‘Magic Circle’ know how to open. <br />
<br />
All the Surprise Major methods we ever ring have the same seven lead ends – the ones that come in a course of Plain Bob Major. We call them the Plain Bob lead ends. This may seem surprising, but historically methods without Plain Bob lead ends were called “irregular” and were frowned upon. Composers of methods stuck to the “regular” Plain Bob lead ends which makes composition and conducting far easier. (There are just 76 out of nearly 6000 Surprise Major methods without Plain Bob lead ends.)<br />
<br />
We can assign these methods to groups based on two things: the order of the lead ends and the change rung at the lead end itself. For example, a method that has lead ends in the same order as Plain Bob, and which has second-place lead ends like Plain Bob, is an “a” group method (as is Plain Bob, itself). Cambridge has a first lead end that is the same as the second lead end of Plain Bob and is a “b” group method. Methods with seconds-place lead ends are in groups a g. depending on the order of the lead ends. Methods that have eighth-place lead ends are assigned to groups h m, again, depending on the order of the lead ends. One of the most popular groups, m group, is usually rung with 4ths place bobs and designated ‘mx’.<br />
<br />
In PPE, our first seven ingredients are three b group methods (Cambridge, Yorkshire, and Superlative), two f group methods (London and Lessness), one l group (Cornwall – and it’s “L” as in leather), and one “mx” method (Bristol). The Standard 8 only have three groups (b, f, and mx). Despite having one fewer method than the Standard 8, in PPE we have one more lead end group, which gives us quite a bit more flexibility.<br />
<br />
So, how do you splice them?<br />
<br />
For a simple start, you can ring seven leads of the same lead end group in any order – a plain course. For example, you can freely splice Cambridge, Superlative, and Yorkshire, all b group methods, and for more of a challenge you can freely splice the two f group methods, Lessness and London. Actually, as long as you aren’t fussed about truth, which you shouldn’t be for short touches, you can add Bristol to Lessness and London even though they are in different groups - as long as there are no bobs called, f group and mx methods have the same lead end order. <br />
<br />
From now on, we are going to abbreviate the method names. Cambridge, Yorkshire, Superlative, London and Bristol are easy: “C”, “Y”, “S”, “L”, and “B”, respectively. Lessness is usually abbreviated “E”, and Cornwall as “W”. These abbreviations are not universal, but are common enough.<br />
<br />
You can get a different length course by mixing method groups. You can do this by thinking about what place bells the tenor is ringing. For instance if you rang four leads of the b group methods, e.g. CSYS, the tenor would have become 7ths place bell. So you think to yourself “what sort of method gets you from 7ths place bell back to 8ths in one lead?” The answer is any f group or mx method – London, Lessness or Bristol. So it is worth remembering that a single lead of an f group or mx method, plus four leads of b group methods, comes round, and that you can ring them in any order. <br />
<br />
Another way of thinking about that five lead course is that the f group method had the same effect as three leads of b group methods – it gets the tenor to the same place. So you could replace three more of the leads of CY or S with another lead of, for instance, London. <br />
<br />
Then we have Cornwall where 8ths place bell becomes 4ths. How do you get from 4ths place bell back home to 8ths? Simply with one lead of Cambridge or equivalent. So there is a two lead course combining Cornwall with any of the b group methods, either way round. <br />
<br />
What course options do we have with the Starter Seven? First here is a recap of method names, their abbreviations and their groups:<br />
<br />
C Cambridge b group<br />
<br />
Y Yorkshire b group<br />
<br />
S Superlative b group<br />
<br />
W Cornwall l group<br />
<br />
B Bristol mx<br />
<br />
L London f group<br />
<br />
E Lessness f group<br />
<br />
<br />
No of leads Explanation Example<br />
<br />
7 Mix C Y and S in any order CYSYCYS<br />
<br />
7 Mix L E and B in any order BELBELB<br />
<br />
5 One lead of an f group, four of b group LCCCC<br />
<br />
3 Two leads of f or mx, one b LSL<br />
<br />
2 Cornwall plus one b group WC<br />
<br />
Now for a complication – calls. If you make a call at Middle Wrong or Home (when the tenor becomes 6ths, 7ths and 8ths place bells respectively) in a 2nds place method the lead order is not affected because the tenor is not affected. If, however, you call a bob at the end of a lead of Cornwall or Bristol, the order does change – the tenor “jumps” on the line. In Bristol the tenor jumps back a lead and rings the same lead again. In Cornwall … have a look at it and see what it does.<br />
<br />
<br />
A simple touch comprising three bobs at Home could therefore be put together with three short courses all called differently, containing six of the PPE methods. For instance:<br />
<br />
23456 H<br />
________<br />
42356 - LSE. <br />
34256 - WY.<br />
23456 - B.<br />
________<br />
<br />
It is worth getting used to how touches like this are often written out. The calling positions used are at the top (just Homes in this case). The course ends brought up at the end of the course are on the left (missing out 1 7 and 8 as they stay the same), calls made in each course are shown as dashes in the appropriate column, and each course is on a separate line. It may seem counter-intuitive, but the numbers on the left are the course end that results from calling the calls and methods to the right. <br />
<br />
So in a more wordy form this is LSE (bob) - three lead course, Superlative as middle lead will have Queens in, Lessness and London interchangeable<br />
WY (bob) – two lead course, start with Cornwall otherwise the bob messes it up<br />
B (bob) – Bristol repeats the lead so repeats the call<br />
<br />
Any course can be extended by calling a bob at the end and then adding a couple of bobbed leads of Bristol, e.g. LSL-B-B- (That’s another way of writing it – a string of letters with the bobs as dashes.) Two bobbed leads of Bristol at the end is nice because they contain a few 5678 roll ups. So just with short courses and bobs at Home you have lots of good practice options. <br />
<br />
As a composer/conductor, you expand your repertoire of callings for short touches. Then all you then need to do is use combinations of methods that will get you to those calling positions. For practice touches we don’t tend to worry about truth, so all we need to do is work out how to get back to rounds by combining methods with different lead-end orders with callings that would come round if rung to a single method. <br />
<br />
Touches worth knowing are:<br />
<br />
3H or 3W<br />
sH sH<br />
W H W H<br />
B W M<br />
<br />
I will more often that not use W H W H for a shortish touch, particularly if I am wanting to test changing direction in and out of London. That would be <br />
<br />
LS-L- <br />
LC-L-<br />
<br />
<br />
Don Morrison has offered the following options showing how these touches can be used to combine the PPE methods. An s in a column denotes a Single, with the dash used for Bobs.<br />
<br />
23456 H<br />
________<br />
24356 s WC.<br />
23456 s YCYCW.<br />
________<br />
<br />
23456 H<br />
________<br />
42356 - EYE.<br />
34256 - WC.<br />
23456 - WY.<br />
________<br />
<br />
23456 H<br />
________<br />
24356 s ESE.<br />
23456 s WLWBW.<br />
________<br />
<br />
23456 H<br />
________<br />
24356 s B.<br />
32456 - EWWLE.<br />
(23456) BS(E)<br />
________<br />
<br />
23456 H<br />
_________<br />
24356 s WS.<br />
32456 - LCE.<br />
(32456) BY(Y)<br />
_________<br />
<br />
Those two touches will come round after two rows of the method in brackets, i.e. at the treble backstroke snap with the tenor is 7ths place bell.<br />
<br />
23456 B W M<br />
______________ <br />
23456 - - - CY.EL.WB.SE<br />
______________<br />
<br />
A different calling introduced here, with a bob before (tenor runs out). Note that this is the lead of Superlative with Queens in because after the three bobs you are back in the plain course. <br />
<br />
<br />
23456 W B H<br />
_______________<br />
52436 - LS.B<br />
25364 - s WE.CY.(S)<br />
_______________<br />
<br />
<br />
23456<br />
______________________<br />
(32456) sB,sB,sF,B,V,B SC.B.W.L.E.Y.W(C)<br />
______________________<br />
<br />
Next week I will move into the next batch of methods, including some less familiar names. Any criticism levelled at PPE so far, for instance that all it has done is dropped NPR from the Standard 8 and added Cornwall and Lessness, which are quite well known anyway, may start to disappear.</div>SJLhttps://wiki.changeringing.co.uk/index.php?title=Project_Pickled_Egg_-_Part_13&diff=2150Project Pickled Egg - Part 132018-05-27T13:47:56Z<p>SJL: Created page with "===A LITTLE BIT OF SPLICED=== The first seven PPE methods, maybe to become called the Starter Seven unless someone comes up with a better moniker, may well be practiced first..."</p>
<hr />
<div>===A LITTLE BIT OF SPLICED===<br />
<br />
The first seven PPE methods, maybe to become called the Starter Seven unless someone comes up with a better moniker, may well be practiced first as whole courses, but then ringers and bands will be looking to combine them in touches of spliced. <br />
<br />
I think it is very worthwhile explaining the techniques for putting together touches of spliced rather than just offering a selection of touches that work. This skill seems to be locked in the box that only members of the conducting ‘Magic Circle’ know how to open. David Smith is also going to tackle this subject shortly in his excellent back-page Education Committee articles, maybe with a bit more breadth. <br />
<br />
All the Surprise Major methods we ever ring have the same seven lead ends – the ones that come in a course of Plain Bob Major. We call them the Plain Bob lead ends. This may seem surprising, but historically methods without Plain Bob lead ends were called “irregular” and were frowned upon. Composers of methods stuck to the “regular” Plain Bob lead ends which makes composition and conducting far easier. (There are just 76 out of nearly 6000 Surprise Major methods without Plain Bob lead ends.)<br />
<br />
We can assign these methods to groups based on two things: the order of the lead ends and the change rung at the lead end itself. For example, a method that has lead ends in the same order as Plain Bob, and which has second-place lead ends like Plain Bob, is an “a” group method (as is Plain Bob, itself). Cambridge has a first lead end that is the same as the second lead end of Plain Bob and is a “b” group method. Methods with seconds-place lead ends are in groups a g. depending on the order of the lead ends. Methods that have eighth-place lead ends are assigned to groups h m, again, depending on the order of the lead ends. One of the most popular groups, m group, is usually rung with 4ths place bobs and designated ‘mx’.<br />
<br />
In PPE, our first seven ingredients are three b group methods (Cambridge, Yorkshire, and Superlative), two f group methods (London and Lessness), one l group (Cornwall – and it’s “L” as in leather), and one “mx” method (Bristol). The Standard 8 only have three groups (b, f, and mx). Despite having one fewer method than the Standard 8, in PPE we have one more lead end group, which gives us quite a bit more flexibility.<br />
<br />
So, how do you splice them?<br />
<br />
For a simple start, you can ring seven leads of the same lead end group in any order – a plain course. For example, you can freely splice Cambridge, Superlative, and Yorkshire, all b group methods, and for more of a challenge you can freely splice the two f group methods, Lessness and London. Actually, as long as you aren’t fussed about truth, which you shouldn’t be for short touches, you can add Bristol to Lessness and London even though they are in different groups - as long as there are no bobs called, f group and mx methods have the same lead end order. <br />
<br />
From now on, we are going to abbreviate the method names. Cambridge, Yorkshire, Superlative, London and Bristol are easy: “C”, “Y”, “S”, “L”, and “B”, respectively. Lessness is usually abbreviated “E”, and Cornwall as “W”. These abbreviations are not universal, but are common enough.<br />
<br />
You can get a different length course by mixing method groups. You can do this by thinking about what place bells the tenor is ringing. For instance if you rang four leads of the b group methods, e.g. CSYS, the tenor would have become 7ths place bell. So you think to yourself “what sort of method gets you from 7ths place bell back to 8ths in one lead?” The answer is any f group or mx method – London, Lessness or Bristol. So it is worth remembering that a single lead of an f group or mx method, plus four leads of b group methods, comes round, and that you can ring them in any order. <br />
<br />
Another way of thinking about that five lead course is that the f group method had the same effect as three leads of b group methods – it gets the tenor to the same place. So you could replace three more of the leads of CY or S with another lead of, for instance, London. <br />
<br />
Then we have Cornwall where 8ths place bell becomes 4ths. How do you get from 4ths place bell back home to 8ths? Simply with one lead of Cambridge or equivalent. So there is a two lead course combining Cornwall with any of the b group methods, either way round. <br />
<br />
What course options do we have with the Starter Seven? First here is a recap of method names, their abbreviations and their groups:<br />
<br />
C Cambridge b group<br />
<br />
Y Yorkshire b group<br />
<br />
S Superlative b group<br />
<br />
W Cornwall l group<br />
<br />
B Bristol mx<br />
<br />
L London f group<br />
<br />
E Lessness f group<br />
<br />
<br />
No of leads Explanation Example<br />
<br />
7 Mix C Y and S in any order CYSYCYS<br />
<br />
7 Mix L E and B in any order BELBELB<br />
<br />
5 One lead of an f group, four of b group LCCCC<br />
<br />
3 Two leads of f or mx, one b LSL<br />
<br />
2 Cornwall plus one b group WC<br />
<br />
Now for a complication – calls. If you make a call at Middle Wrong or Home (when the tenor becomes 6ths, 7ths and 8ths place bells respectively) in a 2nds place method the lead order is not affected because the tenor is not affected. If, however, you call a bob at the end of a lead of Cornwall or Bristol, the order does change – the tenor “jumps” on the line. In Bristol the tenor jumps back a lead and rings the same lead again. In Cornwall … have a look at it and see what it does.<br />
<br />
<br />
A simple touch comprising three bobs at Home could therefore be put together with three short courses all called differently, containing six of the PPE methods. For instance:<br />
<br />
23456 H<br />
________<br />
42356 - LSE. <br />
34256 - WY.<br />
23456 - B.<br />
________<br />
<br />
It is worth getting used to how touches like this are often written out. The calling positions used are at the top (just Homes in this case). The course ends brought up at the end of the course are on the left (missing out 1 7 and 8 as they stay the same), calls made in each course are shown as dashes in the appropriate column, and each course is on a separate line. It may seem counter-intuitive, but the numbers on the left are the course end that results from calling the calls and methods to the right. <br />
<br />
So in a more wordy form this is LSE (bob) - three lead course, Superlative as middle lead will have Queens in, Lessness and London interchangeable<br />
WY (bob) – two lead course, start with Cornwall otherwise the bob messes it up<br />
B (bob) – Bristol repeats the lead so repeats the call<br />
<br />
Any course can be extended by calling a bob at the end and then adding a couple of bobbed leads of Bristol, e.g. LSL-B-B- (That’s another way of writing it – a string of letters with the bobs as dashes.) Two bobbed leads of Bristol at the end is nice because they contain a few 5678 roll ups. So just with short courses and bobs at Home you have lots of good practice options. <br />
<br />
As a composer/conductor, you expand your repertoire of callings for short touches. Then all you then need to do is use combinations of methods that will get you to those calling positions. For practice touches we don’t tend to worry about truth, so all we need to do is work out how to get back to rounds by combining methods with different lead-end orders with callings that would come round if rung to a single method. <br />
<br />
Touches worth knowing are:<br />
<br />
3H or 3W<br />
sH sH<br />
W H W H<br />
B W M<br />
<br />
I will more often that not use W H W H for a shortish touch, particularly if I am wanting to test changing direction in and out of London. That would be <br />
<br />
LS-L- <br />
LC-L-<br />
<br />
<br />
Don Morrison has offered the following options showing how these touches can be used to combine the PPE methods. An s in a column denotes a Single, with the dash used for Bobs.<br />
<br />
23456 H<br />
________<br />
24356 s WC.<br />
23456 s YCYCW.<br />
________<br />
<br />
23456 H<br />
________<br />
42356 - EYE.<br />
34256 - WC.<br />
23456 - WY.<br />
________<br />
<br />
23456 H<br />
________<br />
24356 s ESE.<br />
23456 s WLWBW.<br />
________<br />
<br />
23456 H<br />
________<br />
24356 s B.<br />
32456 - EWWLE.<br />
(23456) BS(E)<br />
________<br />
<br />
23456 H<br />
_________<br />
24356 s WS.<br />
32456 - LCE.<br />
(32456) BY(Y)<br />
_________<br />
<br />
Those two touches will come round after two rows of the method in brackets, i.e. at the treble backstroke snap with the tenor is 7ths place bell.<br />
<br />
23456 B W M<br />
______________ <br />
23456 - - - CY.EL.WB.SE<br />
______________<br />
<br />
A different calling introduced here, with a bob before (tenor runs out). Note that this is the lead of Superlative with Queens in because after the three bobs you are back in the plain course. <br />
<br />
<br />
23456 W B H<br />
_______________<br />
52436 - LS.B<br />
25364 - s WE.CY.(S)<br />
_______________<br />
<br />
<br />
23456<br />
______________________<br />
(32456) sB,sB,sF,B,V,B SC.B.W.L.E.Y.W(C)<br />
______________________<br />
<br />
Next week I will move into the next batch of methods, including some less familiar names. Any criticism levelled at PPE so far, for instance that all it has done is dropped NPR from the Standard 8 and added Cornwall and Lessness, which are quite well known anyway, may start to disappear.</div>SJLhttps://wiki.changeringing.co.uk/index.php?title=Project_Pickled_Egg&diff=2149Project Pickled Egg2018-05-27T13:45:32Z<p>SJL: </p>
<hr />
<div>Project Pickled Egg aims to develop properly a new set of Core Surprise Major methods to replace the Standard 8, with the degree of thought, consultation and follow-up resource that could have traction. It was created by Simon Linford and is explored through a series of articles in the Ringing World that are repeated here.<br />
<br />
* [[Project Pickled Egg - Part 1]] - Background<br />
* [[Project Pickled Egg - Part 2]] - Where did the Standard 8 come from?<br />
* [[Project Pickled Egg - Part 3]] - Core Principles<br />
* [[Project Pickled Egg - Part 4]] - Cambridge<br />
* [[Project Pickled Egg - Part 5]] - Yorkshire<br />
* [[Project Pickled Egg - Part 6]] - Cornwall<br />
* [[Project Pickled Egg - Part 7]] - Superlative<br />
* [[Project Pickled Egg - Part 8]] - Dustbin Week!<br />
* [[Project Pickled Egg - Part 9]] - Bristol<br />
* [[Project Pickled Egg - Part 10]] - Lessness<br />
* [[Project Pickled Egg - Part 11]] - London<br />
* [[Project Pickled Egg - Part 12]] - The "Starter Seven"<br />
* [[Project Pickled Egg - Part 13]] - A little bit of spliced<br />
<br />
to be continued ...</div>SJLhttps://wiki.changeringing.co.uk/index.php?title=Project_Pickled_Egg_-_Part_12&diff=2148Project Pickled Egg - Part 122018-05-27T13:40:56Z<p>SJL: </p>
<hr />
<div>===The Starter Seven===<br />
<br />
Project Pickled Egg aims to develop a group of Surprise Major methods to replace the Standard 8, with the degree of thought, consultation and follow up resource that could have traction. It would be a set of core methods that would teach ringers how to ring Surprise Major in a progressive way, with each additional method building on what has come before, and clear reasoning for why it adds value. The Standard 8 was never designed to do that - in fact it was never designed at all, and yet it has been used as a learning pathway for 50 years. There is great variety in Surprise Major ringing, without just making methods more difficult, and the Standard 8 hardly scratches the surface.<br />
<br />
I was keen from the start that the number of core methods should not be eight, to avoid any direct comparison with the Standard 8. There are actually going to be at least 12 methods recommended in Project Pickled Egg (lots more weeks to go yet!), and as many ‘try also’ options. What the initial consultees found was that it was not too difficult to define the first seven, but after that the choices and paths start to diverge as there are lots of different options. So at this point, with the first seven methods presented and no great argument against them, it is time to stop for a summary. <br />
<br />
Our seven methods, in the order they have been introduced, are:<br />
<br />
Cambridge - traditional starting point, well known, logical extension from Cambridge Minor<br />
<br />
Yorkshire - same above work and lead end order, well known, not too different below<br />
<br />
Cornwall - 8ths place method and new lead end order, musical, easy to ring and conduct<br />
<br />
Superlative - classic, double method, introduces turning round not at front or back and the technique of counting five pull dodges<br />
<br />
Bristol - more difficult, but learnable in bite-sized chunks, introduces a wrong place method and new blue line features, much loved classic <br />
<br />
Lessness - popular Uxbridge above work, familiar features below, musical plain course, new lead end order<br />
<br />
London - wrong hunting below and above the treble, changing direction in spliced, much more challenging<br />
<br />
If these methods form a ‘Starter Seven’, and I think they should, what would be the best order to learn them in? <br />
<br />
In considering this, I think we should look beyond the confines of a list of Surprise Major methods, because some of the useful skills, some of the methods that will help, come from outside the group. For a start, learning a Surprise Major method without first having rung Kent Treble Bob really is making life difficult for yourself. Kent may not be the stuff of dreams, but it is a very good foundation method for treble dodging methods. <br />
<br />
My suggested order would be: <br />
<br />
(Kent)<br />
<br />
Cambridge<br />
<br />
Yorkshire (there are arguments for learning Yorkshire first)<br />
<br />
try also Turramurra<br />
<br />
Superlative<br />
<br />
try also Painswick<br />
<br />
Cornwall (could be learned first, see below)<br />
<br />
Bristol<br />
<br />
try also Double Dublin, Dublin, Frodsham<br />
<br />
Lessness <br />
<br />
try also Ytterbium, Uxbridge, Ealing, Ely<br />
<br />
London<br />
<br />
I have suggested Lessness after Bristol only because learning Lessness after Cornwall might be confusing. In the early days before PPE catches hold there may be more opportunities to ring Bristol at practices than Lessness (and Cornwall). Also if the Starter Seven just gets increasingly difficult it may give the impression that every new method is going to be harder than the last and this isn’t the case. Coming to Lessness after the challenge of Bristol will be a nice surprise (and soften you up for London!). <br />
<br />
''Alternative pathways and stepping stones<br />
<br />
If Cambridge Major didn’t exist, we wouldn’t invent it as a starting point for learning to ring Surprise Major. We would be more likely to invent Yorkshire, or even York. <br />
<br />
I am by no means alone in having learned Little Bob Minor, Kent Minor, and Cambridge Minor before learning Cambridge Major. That is a good introduction to dodging, treble bob, Cambridge places and other Cambridge work. The jump to Cambridge is a big one as it is the transition from ringing formulaic methods by the treble, to following a blue line. It is useful therefore to have seen at least some of the features before. <br />
<br />
There is another route though. If you rang Oxford instead of Kent, and then Norwich instead of Cambridge, your first Surprise Major method could be Cornwall. Don Morrison has used the Cornwall route successfully in North America and it would be very interesting to get further experience of this approach.<br />
<br />
Thinking a bit further outside the box, another method that could form part of a pathway is [https://complib.org/method/23522 ''College Green Delight Minor'']. I expect this is as yet untested as a route into Surprise Major (I had not come across it until a week ago) but it looks as though it would give a great step towards Yorkshire rather than Cambridge. This pathway could then be Yorkshire, Cambridge as a try also, then Superlative, etc. <br />
<br />
As well as different possible pathways, there are stepping stones that can help with learning these methods. Not everyone needs stepping stones, and not everyone is going to get any. Of the 1,000 or so ringers who have rung 23 Spliced, I bet there aren’t many who hadn’t rung Kent or Cambridge Minor before Cambridge Major, although I know people now who are missing those steps out where there are bands who can support them. <br />
<br />
A few consultees on Facebook, where less experienced Surprise Major ringers have been giving very valuable input to this discussion, have said how they found London Minor and Stedman to be useful stepping stones to Bristol Major because they introduce snippets of work (Stedman whole turns for instance), although if Bristol is taught with an explanation of its structure it would be realised that the similarities with Stedman are a coincidence. <br />
<br />
Alternative pathways and stepping stones are difficult to test. I think we are unlikely to change habits of a lifetime without some empirical proof of success. It would need a lot of careful consideration, for instance by ART, to codify new pathways with less traditional methods such as College Green. One of the core principles of ART’s Learn the Ropes programme is the value of strong foundations, and this applies at the level of Surprise Major ringing as well.</div>SJLhttps://wiki.changeringing.co.uk/index.php?title=Project_Pickled_Egg_-_Part_12&diff=2147Project Pickled Egg - Part 122018-05-27T13:40:11Z<p>SJL: </p>
<hr />
<div>===The Starter Seven===<br />
<br />
Project Pickled Egg aims to develop a group of Surprise Major methods to replace the Standard 8, with the degree of thought, consultation and follow up resource that could have traction. It would be a set of core methods that would teach ringers how to ring Surprise Major in a progressive way, with each additional method building on what has come before, and clear reasoning for why it adds value. The Standard 8 was never designed to do that - in fact it was never designed at all, and yet it has been used as a learning pathway for 50 years. There is great variety in Surprise Major ringing, without just making methods more difficult, and the Standard 8 hardly scratches the surface.<br />
<br />
I was keen from the start that the number of core methods should not be eight, to avoid any direct comparison with the Standard 8. There are actually going to be at least 12 methods recommended in Project Pickled Egg (lots more weeks to go yet!), and as many ‘try also’ options. What the initial consultees found was that it was not too difficult to define the first seven, but after that the choices and paths start to diverge as there are lots of different options. So at this point, with the first seven methods presented and no great argument against them, it is time to stop for a summary. <br />
<br />
Our seven methods, in the order they have been introduced, are:<br />
<br />
Cambridge - traditional starting point, well known, logical extension from Cambridge Minor<br />
<br />
Yorkshire - same above work and lead end order, well known, not too different below<br />
<br />
Cornwall - 8ths place method and new lead end order, musical, easy to ring and conduct<br />
<br />
Superlative - classic, double method, introduces turning round not at front or back and the technique of counting five pull dodges<br />
<br />
Bristol - more difficult, but learnable in bite-sized chunks, introduces a wrong place method and new blue line features, much loved classic <br />
<br />
Lessness - popular Uxbridge above work, familiar features below, musical plain course, new lead end order<br />
<br />
London - wrong hunting below and above the treble, changing direction in spliced, much more challenging<br />
<br />
If these methods form a ‘Starter Seven’, and I think they should, what would be the best order to learn them in? <br />
<br />
In considering this, I think we should look beyond the confines of a list of Surprise Major methods, because some of the useful skills, some of the methods that will help, come from outside the group. For a start, learning a Surprise Major method without first having rung Kent Treble Bob really is making life difficult for yourself. Kent may not be the stuff of dreams, but it is a very good foundation method for treble dodging methods. <br />
<br />
My suggested order would be: <br />
<br />
(Kent)<br />
<br />
===Cambridge===<br />
<br />
===Yorkshire=== (there are arguments for learning Yorkshire first)<br />
<br />
try also Turramurra<br />
<br />
Superlative<br />
<br />
try also Painswick<br />
<br />
Cornwall (could be learned first, see below)<br />
<br />
Bristol<br />
<br />
try also Double Dublin, Dublin, Frodsham<br />
<br />
Lessness <br />
<br />
try also Ytterbium, Uxbridge, Ealing, Ely<br />
<br />
London<br />
<br />
I have suggested Lessness after Bristol only because learning Lessness after Cornwall might be confusing. In the early days before PPE catches hold there may be more opportunities to ring Bristol at practices than Lessness (and Cornwall). Also if the Starter Seven just gets increasingly difficult it may give the impression that every new method is going to be harder than the last and this isn’t the case. Coming to Lessness after the challenge of Bristol will be a nice surprise (and soften you up for London!). <br />
<br />
''Alternative pathways and stepping stones<br />
<br />
If Cambridge Major didn’t exist, we wouldn’t invent it as a starting point for learning to ring Surprise Major. We would be more likely to invent Yorkshire, or even York. <br />
<br />
I am by no means alone in having learned Little Bob Minor, Kent Minor, and Cambridge Minor before learning Cambridge Major. That is a good introduction to dodging, treble bob, Cambridge places and other Cambridge work. The jump to Cambridge is a big one as it is the transition from ringing formulaic methods by the treble, to following a blue line. It is useful therefore to have seen at least some of the features before. <br />
<br />
There is another route though. If you rang Oxford instead of Kent, and then Norwich instead of Cambridge, your first Surprise Major method could be Cornwall. Don Morrison has used the Cornwall route successfully in North America and it would be very interesting to get further experience of this approach.<br />
<br />
Thinking a bit further outside the box, another method that could form part of a pathway is [https://complib.org/method/23522 ''College Green Delight Minor'']. I expect this is as yet untested as a route into Surprise Major (I had not come across it until a week ago) but it looks as though it would give a great step towards Yorkshire rather than Cambridge. This pathway could then be Yorkshire, Cambridge as a try also, then Superlative, etc. <br />
<br />
As well as different possible pathways, there are stepping stones that can help with learning these methods. Not everyone needs stepping stones, and not everyone is going to get any. Of the 1,000 or so ringers who have rung 23 Spliced, I bet there aren’t many who hadn’t rung Kent or Cambridge Minor before Cambridge Major, although I know people now who are missing those steps out where there are bands who can support them. <br />
<br />
A few consultees on Facebook, where less experienced Surprise Major ringers have been giving very valuable input to this discussion, have said how they found London Minor and Stedman to be useful stepping stones to Bristol Major because they introduce snippets of work (Stedman whole turns for instance), although if Bristol is taught with an explanation of its structure it would be realised that the similarities with Stedman are a coincidence. <br />
<br />
Alternative pathways and stepping stones are difficult to test. I think we are unlikely to change habits of a lifetime without some empirical proof of success. It would need a lot of careful consideration, for instance by ART, to codify new pathways with less traditional methods such as College Green. One of the core principles of ART’s Learn the Ropes programme is the value of strong foundations, and this applies at the level of Surprise Major ringing as well.</div>SJLhttps://wiki.changeringing.co.uk/index.php?title=Project_Pickled_Egg_-_Part_12&diff=2146Project Pickled Egg - Part 122018-05-27T13:37:56Z<p>SJL: </p>
<hr />
<div>===The Starter Seven===<br />
<br />
Project Pickled Egg aims to develop a group of Surprise Major methods to replace the Standard 8, with the degree of thought, consultation and follow up resource that could have traction. It would be a set of core methods that would teach ringers how to ring Surprise Major in a progressive way, with each additional method building on what has come before, and clear reasoning for why it adds value. The Standard 8 was never designed to do that - in fact it was never designed at all, and yet it has been used as a learning pathway for 50 years. There is great variety in Surprise Major ringing, without just making methods more difficult, and the Standard 8 hardly scratches the surface.<br />
<br />
I was keen from the start that the number of core methods should not be eight, to avoid any direct comparison with the Standard 8. There are actually going to be at least 12 methods recommended in Project Pickled Egg (lots more weeks to go yet!), and as many ‘try also’ options. What the initial consultees found was that it was not too difficult to define the first seven, but after that the choices and paths start to diverge as there are lots of different options. So at this point, with the first seven methods presented and no great argument against them, it is time to stop for a summary. <br />
<br />
Our seven methods, in the order they have been introduced, are:<br />
<br />
Cambridge - traditional starting point, well known, logical extension from Cambridge Minor<br />
<br />
Yorkshire - same above work and lead end order, well known, not too different below<br />
<br />
Cornwall - 8ths place method and new lead end order, musical, easy to ring and conduct<br />
<br />
Superlative - classic, double method, introduces turning round not at front or back and the technique of counting five pull dodges<br />
<br />
Bristol - more difficult, but learnable in bite-sized chunks, introduces a wrong place method and new blue line features, much loved classic <br />
<br />
Lessness - popular Uxbridge above work, familiar features below, musical plain course, new lead end order<br />
<br />
London - wrong hunting below and above the treble, changing direction in spliced, much more challenging<br />
<br />
If these methods form a ‘Starter Seven’, and I think they should, what would be the best order to learn them in? <br />
<br />
In considering this, I think we should look beyond the confines of a list of Surprise Major methods, because some of the useful skills, some of the methods that will help, come from outside the group. For a start, learning a Surprise Major method without first having rung Kent Treble Bob really is making life difficult for yourself. Kent may not be the stuff of dreams, but it is a very good foundation method for treble dodging methods. <br />
<br />
My suggested order would be: <br />
<br />
(Kent)<br />
<br />
Cambridge<br />
<br />
Yorkshire (there are arguments for learning Yorkshire first)<br />
(try also: Turramurra)<br />
<br />
Superlative<br />
(try also: Painswick)<br />
<br />
Cornwall (could be learned first, see below)<br />
<br />
Bristol<br />
(try also: Double Dublin, Dublin, Frodsham)<br />
<br />
Lessness <br />
(try also: Ytterbium, Uxbridge, Ealing, Ely)<br />
<br />
London<br />
<br />
I have suggested Lessness after Bristol only because learning Lessness after Cornwall might be confusing. In the early days before PPE catches hold there may be more opportunities to ring Bristol at practices than Lessness (and Cornwall). Also if the Starter Seven just gets increasingly difficult it may give the impression that every new method is going to be harder than the last and this isn’t the case. Coming to Lessness after the challenge of Bristol will be a nice surprise (and soften you up for London!). <br />
<br />
''Alternative pathways and stepping stones<br />
<br />
If Cambridge Major didn’t exist, we wouldn’t invent it as a starting point for learning to ring Surprise Major. We would be more likely to invent Yorkshire, or even York. <br />
<br />
I am by no means alone in having learned Little Bob Minor, Kent Minor, and Cambridge Minor before learning Cambridge Major. That is a good introduction to dodging, treble bob, Cambridge places and other Cambridge work. The jump to Cambridge is a big one as it is the transition from ringing formulaic methods by the treble, to following a blue line. It is useful therefore to have seen at least some of the features before. <br />
<br />
There is another route though. If you rang Oxford instead of Kent, and then Norwich instead of Cambridge, your first Surprise Major method could be Cornwall. Don Morrison has used the Cornwall route successfully in North America and it would be very interesting to get further experience of this approach.<br />
<br />
Thinking a bit further outside the box, another method that could form part of a pathway is [https://complib.org/method/23522 ''College Green Delight Minor'']. I expect this is as yet untested as a route into Surprise Major (I had not come across it until a week ago) but it looks as though it would give a great step towards Yorkshire rather than Cambridge. This pathway could then be Yorkshire, Cambridge as a try also, then Superlative, etc. <br />
<br />
As well as different possible pathways, there are stepping stones that can help with learning these methods. Not everyone needs stepping stones, and not everyone is going to get any. Of the 1,000 or so ringers who have rung 23 Spliced, I bet there aren’t many who hadn’t rung Kent or Cambridge Minor before Cambridge Major, although I know people now who are missing those steps out where there are bands who can support them. <br />
<br />
A few consultees on Facebook, where less experienced Surprise Major ringers have been giving very valuable input to this discussion, have said how they found London Minor and Stedman to be useful stepping stones to Bristol Major because they introduce snippets of work (Stedman whole turns for instance), although if Bristol is taught with an explanation of its structure it would be realised that the similarities with Stedman are a coincidence. <br />
<br />
Alternative pathways and stepping stones are difficult to test. I think we are unlikely to change habits of a lifetime without some empirical proof of success. It would need a lot of careful consideration, for instance by ART, to codify new pathways with less traditional methods such as College Green. One of the core principles of ART’s Learn the Ropes programme is the value of strong foundations, and this applies at the level of Surprise Major ringing as well.</div>SJLhttps://wiki.changeringing.co.uk/index.php?title=Project_Pickled_Egg_-_Part_12&diff=2145Project Pickled Egg - Part 122018-05-27T13:36:09Z<p>SJL: </p>
<hr />
<div>===The Starter Seven===<br />
<br />
Project Pickled Egg aims to develop a group of Surprise Major methods to replace the Standard 8, with the degree of thought, consultation and follow up resource that could have traction. It would be a set of core methods that would teach ringers how to ring Surprise Major in a progressive way, with each additional method building on what has come before, and clear reasoning for why it adds value. The Standard 8 was never designed to do that - in fact it was never designed at all, and yet it has been used as a learning pathway for 50 years. There is great variety in Surprise Major ringing, without just making methods more difficult, and the Standard 8 hardly scratches the surface.<br />
<br />
I was keen from the start that the number of core methods should not be eight, to avoid any direct comparison with the Standard 8. There are actually going to be at least 12 methods recommended in Project Pickled Egg (lots more weeks to go yet!), and as many ‘try also’ options. What the initial consultees found was that it was not too difficult to define the first seven, but after that the choices and paths start to diverge as there are lots of different options. So at this point, with the first seven methods presented and no great argument against them, it is time to stop for a summary. <br />
<br />
Our seven methods, in the order they have been introduced, are:<br />
<br />
'Cambridge' - traditional starting point, well known, logical extension from Cambridge Minor<br />
<br />
Yorkshire - same above work and lead end order, well known, not too different below<br />
<br />
Cornwall - 8ths place method and new lead end order, musical, easy to ring and conduct<br />
<br />
Superlative - classic, double method, introduces turning round not at front or back and the technique of counting five pull dodges<br />
<br />
Bristol - more difficult, but learnable in bite-sized chunks, introduces a wrong place method and new blue line features, much loved classic <br />
<br />
Lessness - popular Uxbridge above work, familiar features below, musical plain course, new lead end order<br />
<br />
London - wrong hunting below and above the treble, changing direction in spliced, much more challenging<br />
<br />
If these methods form a ‘Starter Seven’, and I think they should, what would be the best order to learn them in? <br />
<br />
In considering this, I think we should look beyond the confines of a list of Surprise Major methods, because some of the useful skills, some of the methods that will help, come from outside the group. For a start, learning a Surprise Major method without first having rung Kent Treble Bob really is making life difficult for yourself. Kent may not be the stuff of dreams, but it is a very good foundation method for treble dodging methods. <br />
<br />
My suggested order would be: <br />
<br />
(Kent)<br />
<br />
Cambridge<br />
<br />
Yorkshire (there are arguments for learning Yorkshire first)<br />
(try also: Turramurra)<br />
<br />
Superlative<br />
(try also: Painswick)<br />
<br />
Cornwall (could be learned first, see below)<br />
<br />
Bristol<br />
(try also: Double Dublin, Dublin, Frodsham)<br />
<br />
Lessness <br />
(try also: Ytterbium, Uxbridge, Ealing, Ely)<br />
<br />
London<br />
<br />
I have suggested Lessness after Bristol only because learning Lessness after Cornwall might be confusing. In the early days before PPE catches hold there may be more opportunities to ring Bristol at practices than Lessness (and Cornwall). Also if the Starter Seven just gets increasingly difficult it may give the impression that every new method is going to be harder than the last and this isn’t the case. Coming to Lessness after the challenge of Bristol will be a nice surprise (and soften you up for London!). <br />
<br />
''Alternative pathways and stepping stones<br />
<br />
If Cambridge Major didn’t exist, we wouldn’t invent it as a starting point for learning to ring Surprise Major. We would be more likely to invent Yorkshire, or even York. <br />
<br />
I am by no means alone in having learned Little Bob Minor, Kent Minor, and Cambridge Minor before learning Cambridge Major. That is a good introduction to dodging, treble bob, Cambridge places and other Cambridge work. The jump to Cambridge is a big one as it is the transition from ringing formulaic methods by the treble, to following a blue line. It is useful therefore to have seen at least some of the features before. <br />
<br />
There is another route though. If you rang Oxford instead of Kent, and then Norwich instead of Cambridge, your first Surprise Major method could be Cornwall. Don Morrison has used the Cornwall route successfully in North America and it would be very interesting to get further experience of this approach.<br />
<br />
Thinking a bit further outside the box, another method that could form part of a pathway is College Green Delight Minor. I expect this is as yet untested as a route into Surprise Major (I had not come across it until a week ago) but it looks as though it would give a great step towards Yorkshire rather than Cambridge. This pathway could then be Yorkshire, Cambridge as a try also, then Superlative, etc. <br />
<br />
As well as different possible pathways, there are stepping stones that can help with learning these methods. Not everyone needs stepping stones, and not everyone is going to get any. Of the 1,000 or so ringers who have rung 23 Spliced, I bet there aren’t many who hadn’t rung Kent or Cambridge Minor before Cambridge Major, although I know people now who are missing those steps out where there are bands who can support them. <br />
<br />
A few consultees on Facebook, where less experienced Surprise Major ringers have been giving very valuable input to this discussion, have said how they found London Minor and Stedman to be useful stepping stones to Bristol Major because they introduce snippets of work (Stedman whole turns for instance), although if Bristol is taught with an explanation of its structure it would be realised that the similarities with Stedman are a coincidence. <br />
<br />
Alternative pathways and stepping stones are difficult to test. I think we are unlikely to change habits of a lifetime without some empirical proof of success. It would need a lot of careful consideration, for instance by ART, to codify new pathways with less traditional methods such as College Green. One of the core principles of ART’s Learn the Ropes programme is the value of strong foundations, and this applies at the level of Surprise Major ringing as well.</div>SJLhttps://wiki.changeringing.co.uk/index.php?title=Project_Pickled_Egg_-_Part_12&diff=2144Project Pickled Egg - Part 122018-05-27T13:35:52Z<p>SJL: </p>
<hr />
<div>===The Starter Seven===<br />
<br />
Project Pickled Egg aims to develop a group of Surprise Major methods to replace the Standard 8, with the degree of thought, consultation and follow up resource that could have traction. It would be a set of core methods that would teach ringers how to ring Surprise Major in a progressive way, with each additional method building on what has come before, and clear reasoning for why it adds value. The Standard 8 was never designed to do that - in fact it was never designed at all, and yet it has been used as a learning pathway for 50 years. There is great variety in Surprise Major ringing, without just making methods more difficult, and the Standard 8 hardly scratches the surface.<br />
<br />
I was keen from the start that the number of core methods should not be eight, to avoid any direct comparison with the Standard 8. There are actually going to be at least 12 methods recommended in Project Pickled Egg (lots more weeks to go yet!), and as many ‘try also’ options. What the initial consultees found was that it was not too difficult to define the first seven, but after that the choices and paths start to diverge as there are lots of different options. So at this point, with the first seven methods presented and no great argument against them, it is time to stop for a summary. <br />
<br />
Our seven methods, in the order they have been introduced, are:<br />
<br />
=Cambridge= - traditional starting point, well known, logical extension from Cambridge Minor<br />
<br />
Yorkshire - same above work and lead end order, well known, not too different below<br />
<br />
Cornwall - 8ths place method and new lead end order, musical, easy to ring and conduct<br />
<br />
Superlative - classic, double method, introduces turning round not at front or back and the technique of counting five pull dodges<br />
<br />
Bristol - more difficult, but learnable in bite-sized chunks, introduces a wrong place method and new blue line features, much loved classic <br />
<br />
Lessness - popular Uxbridge above work, familiar features below, musical plain course, new lead end order<br />
<br />
London - wrong hunting below and above the treble, changing direction in spliced, much more challenging<br />
<br />
If these methods form a ‘Starter Seven’, and I think they should, what would be the best order to learn them in? <br />
<br />
In considering this, I think we should look beyond the confines of a list of Surprise Major methods, because some of the useful skills, some of the methods that will help, come from outside the group. For a start, learning a Surprise Major method without first having rung Kent Treble Bob really is making life difficult for yourself. Kent may not be the stuff of dreams, but it is a very good foundation method for treble dodging methods. <br />
<br />
My suggested order would be: <br />
<br />
(Kent)<br />
<br />
Cambridge<br />
<br />
Yorkshire (there are arguments for learning Yorkshire first)<br />
(try also: Turramurra)<br />
<br />
Superlative<br />
(try also: Painswick)<br />
<br />
Cornwall (could be learned first, see below)<br />
<br />
Bristol<br />
(try also: Double Dublin, Dublin, Frodsham)<br />
<br />
Lessness <br />
(try also: Ytterbium, Uxbridge, Ealing, Ely)<br />
<br />
London<br />
<br />
I have suggested Lessness after Bristol only because learning Lessness after Cornwall might be confusing. In the early days before PPE catches hold there may be more opportunities to ring Bristol at practices than Lessness (and Cornwall). Also if the Starter Seven just gets increasingly difficult it may give the impression that every new method is going to be harder than the last and this isn’t the case. Coming to Lessness after the challenge of Bristol will be a nice surprise (and soften you up for London!). <br />
<br />
''Alternative pathways and stepping stones<br />
<br />
If Cambridge Major didn’t exist, we wouldn’t invent it as a starting point for learning to ring Surprise Major. We would be more likely to invent Yorkshire, or even York. <br />
<br />
I am by no means alone in having learned Little Bob Minor, Kent Minor, and Cambridge Minor before learning Cambridge Major. That is a good introduction to dodging, treble bob, Cambridge places and other Cambridge work. The jump to Cambridge is a big one as it is the transition from ringing formulaic methods by the treble, to following a blue line. It is useful therefore to have seen at least some of the features before. <br />
<br />
There is another route though. If you rang Oxford instead of Kent, and then Norwich instead of Cambridge, your first Surprise Major method could be Cornwall. Don Morrison has used the Cornwall route successfully in North America and it would be very interesting to get further experience of this approach.<br />
<br />
Thinking a bit further outside the box, another method that could form part of a pathway is College Green Delight Minor. I expect this is as yet untested as a route into Surprise Major (I had not come across it until a week ago) but it looks as though it would give a great step towards Yorkshire rather than Cambridge. This pathway could then be Yorkshire, Cambridge as a try also, then Superlative, etc. <br />
<br />
As well as different possible pathways, there are stepping stones that can help with learning these methods. Not everyone needs stepping stones, and not everyone is going to get any. Of the 1,000 or so ringers who have rung 23 Spliced, I bet there aren’t many who hadn’t rung Kent or Cambridge Minor before Cambridge Major, although I know people now who are missing those steps out where there are bands who can support them. <br />
<br />
A few consultees on Facebook, where less experienced Surprise Major ringers have been giving very valuable input to this discussion, have said how they found London Minor and Stedman to be useful stepping stones to Bristol Major because they introduce snippets of work (Stedman whole turns for instance), although if Bristol is taught with an explanation of its structure it would be realised that the similarities with Stedman are a coincidence. <br />
<br />
Alternative pathways and stepping stones are difficult to test. I think we are unlikely to change habits of a lifetime without some empirical proof of success. It would need a lot of careful consideration, for instance by ART, to codify new pathways with less traditional methods such as College Green. One of the core principles of ART’s Learn the Ropes programme is the value of strong foundations, and this applies at the level of Surprise Major ringing as well.</div>SJLhttps://wiki.changeringing.co.uk/index.php?title=Project_Pickled_Egg_-_Part_12&diff=2143Project Pickled Egg - Part 122018-05-27T13:35:21Z<p>SJL: </p>
<hr />
<div>===The Starter Seven===<br />
<br />
Project Pickled Egg aims to develop a group of Surprise Major methods to replace the Standard 8, with the degree of thought, consultation and follow up resource that could have traction. It would be a set of core methods that would teach ringers how to ring Surprise Major in a progressive way, with each additional method building on what has come before, and clear reasoning for why it adds value. The Standard 8 was never designed to do that - in fact it was never designed at all, and yet it has been used as a learning pathway for 50 years. There is great variety in Surprise Major ringing, without just making methods more difficult, and the Standard 8 hardly scratches the surface.<br />
<br />
I was keen from the start that the number of core methods should not be eight, to avoid any direct comparison with the Standard 8. There are actually going to be at least 12 methods recommended in Project Pickled Egg (lots more weeks to go yet!), and as many ‘try also’ options. What the initial consultees found was that it was not too difficult to define the first seven, but after that the choices and paths start to diverge as there are lots of different options. So at this point, with the first seven methods presented and no great argument against them, it is time to stop for a summary. <br />
<br />
Our seven methods, in the order they have been introduced, are:<br />
<br />
Cambridge - traditional starting point, well known, logical extension from Cambridge Minor<br />
<br />
Yorkshire - same above work and lead end order, well known, not too different below<br />
<br />
Cornwall - 8ths place method and new lead end order, musical, easy to ring and conduct<br />
<br />
Superlative - classic, double method, introduces turning round not at front or back and the technique of counting five pull dodges<br />
<br />
Bristol - more difficult, but learnable in bite-sized chunks, introduces a wrong place method and new blue line features, much loved classic <br />
<br />
Lessness - popular Uxbridge above work, familiar features below, musical plain course, new lead end order<br />
<br />
London - wrong hunting below and above the treble, changing direction in spliced, much more challenging<br />
<br />
If these methods form a ‘Starter Seven’, and I think they should, what would be the best order to learn them in? <br />
<br />
In considering this, I think we should look beyond the confines of a list of Surprise Major methods, because some of the useful skills, some of the methods that will help, come from outside the group. For a start, learning a Surprise Major method without first having rung Kent Treble Bob really is making life difficult for yourself. Kent may not be the stuff of dreams, but it is a very good foundation method for treble dodging methods. <br />
<br />
My suggested order would be: <br />
<br />
(Kent)<br />
<br />
Cambridge<br />
<br />
Yorkshire (there are arguments for learning Yorkshire first)<br />
(try also: Turramurra)<br />
<br />
Superlative<br />
(try also: Painswick)<br />
<br />
Cornwall (could be learned first, see below)<br />
<br />
Bristol<br />
(try also: Double Dublin, Dublin, Frodsham)<br />
<br />
Lessness <br />
(try also: Ytterbium, Uxbridge, Ealing, Ely)<br />
<br />
London<br />
<br />
I have suggested Lessness after Bristol only because learning Lessness after Cornwall might be confusing. In the early days before PPE catches hold there may be more opportunities to ring Bristol at practices than Lessness (and Cornwall). Also if the Starter Seven just gets increasingly difficult it may give the impression that every new method is going to be harder than the last and this isn’t the case. Coming to Lessness after the challenge of Bristol will be a nice surprise (and soften you up for London!). <br />
<br />
''Alternative pathways and stepping stones<br />
<br />
If Cambridge Major didn’t exist, we wouldn’t invent it as a starting point for learning to ring Surprise Major. We would be more likely to invent Yorkshire, or even York. <br />
<br />
I am by no means alone in having learned Little Bob Minor, Kent Minor, and Cambridge Minor before learning Cambridge Major. That is a good introduction to dodging, treble bob, Cambridge places and other Cambridge work. The jump to Cambridge is a big one as it is the transition from ringing formulaic methods by the treble, to following a blue line. It is useful therefore to have seen at least some of the features before. <br />
<br />
There is another route though. If you rang Oxford instead of Kent, and then Norwich instead of Cambridge, your first Surprise Major method could be Cornwall. Don Morrison has used the Cornwall route successfully in North America and it would be very interesting to get further experience of this approach.<br />
<br />
Thinking a bit further outside the box, another method that could form part of a pathway is College Green Delight Minor. I expect this is as yet untested as a route into Surprise Major (I had not come across it until a week ago) but it looks as though it would give a great step towards Yorkshire rather than Cambridge. This pathway could then be Yorkshire, Cambridge as a try also, then Superlative, etc. <br />
<br />
As well as different possible pathways, there are stepping stones that can help with learning these methods. Not everyone needs stepping stones, and not everyone is going to get any. Of the 1,000 or so ringers who have rung 23 Spliced, I bet there aren’t many who hadn’t rung Kent or Cambridge Minor before Cambridge Major, although I know people now who are missing those steps out where there are bands who can support them. <br />
<br />
A few consultees on Facebook, where less experienced Surprise Major ringers have been giving very valuable input to this discussion, have said how they found London Minor and Stedman to be useful stepping stones to Bristol Major because they introduce snippets of work (Stedman whole turns for instance), although if Bristol is taught with an explanation of its structure it would be realised that the similarities with Stedman are a coincidence. <br />
<br />
Alternative pathways and stepping stones are difficult to test. I think we are unlikely to change habits of a lifetime without some empirical proof of success. It would need a lot of careful consideration, for instance by ART, to codify new pathways with less traditional methods such as College Green. One of the core principles of ART’s Learn the Ropes programme is the value of strong foundations, and this applies at the level of Surprise Major ringing as well.</div>SJLhttps://wiki.changeringing.co.uk/index.php?title=Project_Pickled_Egg_-_Part_12&diff=2142Project Pickled Egg - Part 122018-05-27T13:33:58Z<p>SJL: </p>
<hr />
<div>Project Pickled Egg aims to develop a group of Surprise Major methods to replace the Standard 8, with the degree of thought, consultation and follow up resource that could have traction. It would be a set of core methods that would teach ringers how to ring Surprise Major in a progressive way, with each additional method building on what has come before, and clear reasoning for why it adds value. The Standard 8 was never designed to do that - in fact it was never designed at all, and yet it has been used as a learning pathway for 50 years. There is great variety in Surprise Major ringing, without just making methods more difficult, and the Standard 8 hardly scratches the surface.<br />
<br />
I was keen from the start that the number of core methods should not be eight, to avoid any direct comparison with the Standard 8. There are actually going to be at least 12 methods recommended in Project Pickled Egg (lots more weeks to go yet!), and as many ‘try also’ options. What the initial consultees found was that it was not too difficult to define the first seven, but after that the choices and paths start to diverge as there are lots of different options. So at this point, with the first seven methods presented and no great argument against them, it is time to stop for a summary. <br />
<br />
Our seven methods, in the order they have been introduced, are:<br />
<br />
Cambridge - traditional starting point, well known, logical extension from Cambridge Minor<br />
<br />
Yorkshire - same above work and lead end order, well known, not too different below<br />
<br />
Cornwall - 8ths place method and new lead end order, musical, easy to ring and conduct<br />
<br />
Superlative - classic, double method, introduces turning round not at front or back and the technique of counting five pull dodges<br />
<br />
Bristol - more difficult, but learnable in bite-sized chunks, introduces a wrong place method and new blue line features, much loved classic <br />
<br />
Lessness - popular Uxbridge above work, familiar features below, musical plain course, new lead end order<br />
<br />
London - wrong hunting below and above the treble, changing direction in spliced, much more challenging<br />
<br />
If these methods form a ‘Starter Seven’, and I think they should, what would be the best order to learn them in? <br />
<br />
In considering this, I think we should look beyond the confines of a list of Surprise Major methods, because some of the useful skills, some of the methods that will help, come from outside the group. For a start, learning a Surprise Major method without first having rung Kent Treble Bob really is making life difficult for yourself. Kent may not be the stuff of dreams, but it is a very good foundation method for treble dodging methods. <br />
<br />
My suggested order would be: <br />
<br />
(Kent)<br />
<br />
Cambridge<br />
<br />
Yorkshire (there are arguments for learning Yorkshire first)<br />
(try also: Turramurra)<br />
<br />
Superlative<br />
(try also: Painswick)<br />
<br />
Cornwall (could be learned first, see below)<br />
<br />
Bristol<br />
(try also: Double Dublin, Dublin, Frodsham)<br />
<br />
Lessness <br />
(try also: Ytterbium, Uxbridge, Ealing, Ely)<br />
<br />
London<br />
<br />
I have suggested Lessness after Bristol only because learning Lessness after Cornwall might be confusing. In the early days before PPE catches hold there may be more opportunities to ring Bristol at practices than Lessness (and Cornwall). Also if the Starter Seven just gets increasingly difficult it may give the impression that every new method is going to be harder than the last and this isn’t the case. Coming to Lessness after the challenge of Bristol will be a nice surprise (and soften you up for London!). <br />
<br />
''Alternative pathways and stepping stones<br />
<br />
If Cambridge Major didn’t exist, we wouldn’t invent it as a starting point for learning to ring Surprise Major. We would be more likely to invent Yorkshire, or even York. <br />
<br />
I am by no means alone in having learned Little Bob Minor, Kent Minor, and Cambridge Minor before learning Cambridge Major. That is a good introduction to dodging, treble bob, Cambridge places and other Cambridge work. The jump to Cambridge is a big one as it is the transition from ringing formulaic methods by the treble, to following a blue line. It is useful therefore to have seen at least some of the features before. <br />
<br />
There is another route though. If you rang Oxford instead of Kent, and then Norwich instead of Cambridge, your first Surprise Major method could be Cornwall. Don Morrison has used the Cornwall route successfully in North America and it would be very interesting to get further experience of this approach.<br />
<br />
Thinking a bit further outside the box, another method that could form part of a pathway is College Green Delight Minor. I expect this is as yet untested as a route into Surprise Major (I had not come across it until a week ago) but it looks as though it would give a great step towards Yorkshire rather than Cambridge. This pathway could then be Yorkshire, Cambridge as a try also, then Superlative, etc. <br />
<br />
As well as different possible pathways, there are stepping stones that can help with learning these methods. Not everyone needs stepping stones, and not everyone is going to get any. Of the 1,000 or so ringers who have rung 23 Spliced, I bet there aren’t many who hadn’t rung Kent or Cambridge Minor before Cambridge Major, although I know people now who are missing those steps out where there are bands who can support them. <br />
<br />
A few consultees on Facebook, where less experienced Surprise Major ringers have been giving very valuable input to this discussion, have said how they found London Minor and Stedman to be useful stepping stones to Bristol Major because they introduce snippets of work (Stedman whole turns for instance), although if Bristol is taught with an explanation of its structure it would be realised that the similarities with Stedman are a coincidence. <br />
<br />
Alternative pathways and stepping stones are difficult to test. I think we are unlikely to change habits of a lifetime without some empirical proof of success. It would need a lot of careful consideration, for instance by ART, to codify new pathways with less traditional methods such as College Green. One of the core principles of ART’s Learn the Ropes programme is the value of strong foundations, and this applies at the level of Surprise Major ringing as well.</div>SJLhttps://wiki.changeringing.co.uk/index.php?title=Project_Pickled_Egg_-_Part_12&diff=2141Project Pickled Egg - Part 122018-05-27T13:30:46Z<p>SJL: </p>
<hr />
<div>Project Pickled Egg aims to develop a group of Surprise Major methods to replace the Standard 8, with the degree of thought, consultation and follow up resource that could have traction. It would be a set of core methods that would teach ringers how to ring Surprise Major in a progressive way, with each additional method building on what has come before, and clear reasoning for why it adds value. The Standard 8 was never designed to do that - in fact it was never designed at all, and yet it has been used as a learning pathway for 50 years. There is great variety in Surprise Major ringing, without just making methods more difficult, and the Standard 8 hardly scratches the surface.<br />
<br />
I was keen from the start that the number of core methods should not be eight, to avoid any direct comparison with the Standard 8. There are actually going to be at least 12 methods recommended in Project Pickled Egg (lots more weeks to go yet!), and as many ‘try also’ options. What the initial consultees found was that it was not too difficult to define the first seven, but after that the choices and paths start to diverge as there are lots of different options. So at this point, with the first seven methods presented and no great argument against them, it is time to stop for a summary. <br />
<br />
Our seven methods, in the order they have been introduced, are:<br />
<br />
Cambridge - traditional starting point, well known, logical extension from Cambridge Minor<br />
Yorkshire - same above work and lead end order, well known, not too different below<br />
Cornwall - 8ths place method and new lead end order, musical, easy to ring and conduct<br />
Superlative - classic, double method, introduces turning round not at front or back and the technique of counting five pull dodges<br />
Bristol - more difficult, but learnable in bite-sized chunks, introduces a wrong place method and new blue line features, much loved classic <br />
Lessness - popular Uxbridge above work, familiar features below, musical plain course, new lead end order<br />
London - wrong hunting below and above the treble, changing direction in spliced, much more challenging<br />
<br />
If these methods form a ‘Starter Seven’, and I think they should, what would be the best order to learn them in? <br />
<br />
In considering this, I think we should look beyond the confines of a list of Surprise Major methods, because some of the useful skills, some of the methods that will help, come from outside the group. For a start, learning a Surprise Major method without first having rung Kent Treble Bob really is making life difficult for yourself. Kent may not be the stuff of dreams, but it is a very good foundation method for treble dodging methods. <br />
<br />
My suggested order would be: <br />
<br />
(Kent)<br />
<br />
Cambridge<br />
<br />
Yorkshire (there are arguments for learning Yorkshire first)<br />
(try also: Turramurra)<br />
<br />
Superlative<br />
(try also: Painswick)<br />
<br />
Cornwall (could be learned first, see below)<br />
<br />
Bristol<br />
(try also: Double Dublin, Dublin, Frodsham)<br />
<br />
Lessness <br />
(try also: Ytterbium, Uxbridge, Ealing, Ely)<br />
<br />
London<br />
<br />
I have suggested Lessness after Bristol only because learning Lessness after Cornwall might be confusing. In the early days before PPE catches hold there may be more opportunities to ring Bristol at practices than Lessness (and Cornwall). Also if the Starter Seven just gets increasingly difficult it may give the impression that every new method is going to be harder than the last and this isn’t the case. Coming to Lessness after the challenge of Bristol will be a nice surprise (and soften you up for London!). <br />
<br />
''Alternative pathways and stepping stones<br />
<br />
If Cambridge Major didn’t exist, we wouldn’t invent it as a starting point for learning to ring Surprise Major. We would be more likely to invent Yorkshire, or even York. <br />
<br />
I am by no means alone in having learned Little Bob Minor, Kent Minor, and Cambridge Minor before learning Cambridge Major. That is a good introduction to dodging, treble bob, Cambridge places and other Cambridge work. The jump to Cambridge is a big one as it is the transition from ringing formulaic methods by the treble, to following a blue line. It is useful therefore to have seen at least some of the features before. <br />
<br />
There is another route though. If you rang Oxford instead of Kent, and then Norwich instead of Cambridge, your first Surprise Major method could be Cornwall. Don Morrison has used the Cornwall route successfully in North America and it would be very interesting to get further experience of this approach.<br />
<br />
Thinking a bit further outside the box, another method that could form part of a pathway is College Green Delight Minor. I expect this is as yet untested as a route into Surprise Major (I had not come across it until a week ago) but it looks as though it would give a great step towards Yorkshire rather than Cambridge. This pathway could then be Yorkshire, Cambridge as a try also, then Superlative, etc. <br />
<br />
As well as different possible pathways, there are stepping stones that can help with learning these methods. Not everyone needs stepping stones, and not everyone is going to get any. Of the 1,000 or so ringers who have rung 23 Spliced, I bet there aren’t many who hadn’t rung Kent or Cambridge Minor before Cambridge Major, although I know people now who are missing those steps out where there are bands who can support them. <br />
<br />
A few consultees on Facebook, where less experienced Surprise Major ringers have been giving very valuable input to this discussion, have said how they found London Minor and Stedman to be useful stepping stones to Bristol Major because they introduce snippets of work (Stedman whole turns for instance), although if Bristol is taught with an explanation of its structure it would be realised that the similarities with Stedman are a coincidence. <br />
<br />
Alternative pathways and stepping stones are difficult to test. I think we are unlikely to change habits of a lifetime without some empirical proof of success. It would need a lot of careful consideration, for instance by ART, to codify new pathways with less traditional methods such as College Green. One of the core principles of ART’s Learn the Ropes programme is the value of strong foundations, and this applies at the level of Surprise Major ringing as well.</div>SJLhttps://wiki.changeringing.co.uk/index.php?title=Project_Pickled_Egg_-_Part_12&diff=2140Project Pickled Egg - Part 122018-05-27T13:28:48Z<p>SJL: Created page with "Project Pickled Egg aims to develop a group of Surprise Major methods to replace the Standard 8, with the degree of thought, consultation and follow up resource that could hav..."</p>
<hr />
<div>Project Pickled Egg aims to develop a group of Surprise Major methods to replace the Standard 8, with the degree of thought, consultation and follow up resource that could have traction. It would be a set of core methods that would teach ringers how to ring Surprise Major in a progressive way, with each additional method building on what has come before, and clear reasoning for why it adds value. The Standard 8 was never designed to do that - in fact it was never designed at all, and yet it has been used as a learning pathway for 50 years. There is great variety in Surprise Major ringing, without just making methods more difficult, and the Standard 8 hardly scratches the surface.<br />
<br />
I was keen from the start that the number of core methods should not be eight, to avoid any direct comparison with the Standard 8. There are actually going to be at least 12 methods recommended in Project Pickled Egg (lots more weeks to go yet!), and as many ‘try also’ options. What the initial consultees found was that it was not too difficult to define the first seven, but after that the choices and paths start to diverge as there are lots of different options. So at this point, with the first seven methods presented and no great argument against them, it is time to stop for a summary. <br />
<br />
Our seven methods, in the order they have been introduced, are:<br />
<br />
Cambridge - traditional starting point, well known, logical extension from Cambridge Minor<br />
Yorkshire - same above work and lead end order, well known, not too different below<br />
Cornwall - 8ths place method and new lead end order, musical, easy to ring and conduct<br />
Superlative - classic, double method, introduces turning round not at front or back and the technique of counting five pull dodges<br />
Bristol - more difficult, but learnable in bite-sized chunks, introduces a wrong place method and new blue line features, much loved classic <br />
Lessness - popular Uxbridge above work, familiar features below, musical plain course, new lead end order<br />
London - wrong hunting below and above the treble, changing direction in spliced, much more challenging<br />
<br />
If these methods form a ‘Starter Seven’, and I think they should, what would be the best order to learn them in? <br />
<br />
In considering this, I think we should look beyond the confines of a list of Surprise Major methods, because some of the useful skills, some of the methods that will help, come from outside the group. For a start, learning a Surprise Major method without first having rung Kent Treble Bob really is making life difficult for yourself. Kent may not be the stuff of dreams, but it is a very good foundation method for treble dodging methods. <br />
<br />
My suggested order would be: <br />
(Kent)<br />
Cambridge<br />
Yorkshire (there are arguments for learning Yorkshire first)<br />
(try also: Turramurra)<br />
Superlative<br />
(try also: Painswick)<br />
Cornwall (could be learned first, see below)<br />
Bristol<br />
(try also: Double Dublin, Dublin, Frodsham)<br />
Lessness <br />
(try also: Ytterbium, Uxbridge, Ealing, Ely)<br />
London<br />
<br />
I have suggested Lessness after Bristol only because learning Lessness after Cornwall might be confusing. In the early days before PPE catches hold there may be more opportunities to ring Bristol at practices than Lessness (and Cornwall). Also if the Starter Seven just gets increasingly difficult it may give the impression that every new method is going to be harder than the last and this isn’t the case. Coming to Lessness after the challenge of Bristol will be a nice surprise (and soften you up for London!). <br />
<br />
Alternative pathways and stepping stones<br />
<br />
If Cambridge Major didn’t exist, we wouldn’t invent it as a starting point for learning to ring Surprise Major. We would be more likely to invent Yorkshire, or even York. <br />
<br />
I am by no means alone in having learned Little Bob Minor, Kent Minor, and Cambridge Minor before learning Cambridge Major. That is a good introduction to dodging, treble bob, Cambridge places and other Cambridge work. The jump to Cambridge is a big one as it is the transition from ringing formulaic methods by the treble, to following a blue line. It is useful therefore to have seen at least some of the features before. <br />
<br />
There is another route though. If you rang Oxford instead of Kent, and then Norwich instead of Cambridge, your first Surprise Major method could be Cornwall. Don Morrison has used the Cornwall route successfully in North America and it would be very interesting to get further experience of this approach.<br />
<br />
Thinking a bit further outside the box, another method that could form part of a pathway is College Green Delight Minor. I expect this is as yet untested as a route into Surprise Major (I had not come across it until a week ago) but it looks as though it would give a great step towards Yorkshire rather than Cambridge. This pathway could then be Yorkshire, Cambridge as a try also, then Superlative, etc. <br />
<br />
As well as different possible pathways, there are stepping stones that can help with learning these methods. Not everyone needs stepping stones, and not everyone is going to get any. Of the 1,000 or so ringers who have rung 23 Spliced, I bet there aren’t many who hadn’t rung Kent or Cambridge Minor before Cambridge Major, although I know people now who are missing those steps out where there are bands who can support them. <br />
<br />
A few consultees on Facebook, where less experienced Surprise Major ringers have been giving very valuable input to this discussion, have said how they found London Minor and Stedman to be useful stepping stones to Bristol Major because they introduce snippets of work (Stedman whole turns for instance), although if Bristol is taught with an explanation of its structure it would be realised that the similarities with Stedman are a coincidence. <br />
<br />
Alternative pathways and stepping stones are difficult to test. I think we are unlikely to change habits of a lifetime without some empirical proof of success. It would need a lot of careful consideration, for instance by ART, to codify new pathways with less traditional methods such as College Green. One of the core principles of ART’s Learn the Ropes programme is the value of strong foundations, and this applies at the level of Surprise Major ringing as well.</div>SJL