[r-t] Non-distinct fragments

Graham John graham at changeringing.co.uk
Sun Nov 21 23:20:34 UTC 2004

PABS wrote:
> Something like this?

> 144 Spliced S Minor (4m)

> 23456 C
> 56342 Q
> 24536 C/K
> 36452 K/P
> 25346 P/C
> 46532 Q
> 23456

> 48 Cambridge, Queen Mary; 24 King Edward, Primrose

Yes, I do think this is acceptable, so long as the conductor calls it like
this. Now you are going to tell me that it is the equivalent of CQCQCQ,
which it is, but that would have to be called differently. So, what about
silent and non-conducted? Clearly in that case, how it is defined is open to
question, but I have no problems leaving this to the descretion and
integrity of the band concerned, according to the way they learnt the

In spite of xyz's views about grids, method names provide a convenient way
to learn, remember, and call long sequences of place notation. I don't think
that it matters too much that you can define a piece of ringing in more than
one way using different methods. Half-lead spliced is not the only situation
where this can arise, so why do we treat it as a special case?


More information about the ringing-theory mailing list