[r-t] RE: Plain methods (was Method Review)

Philip Earis Earisp at rsc.org
Mon Feb 21 12:48:02 UTC 2005

Young Poole:
"Plain bob is so dull though!  Surely that's why it's not rung much on
higher numbers..."

And Stedman on higher numbers isn't dull? At least plain bob has music.
Sure, you've got some stability in Stedman caused by its more static
nature, but if that's what you're after then why not ring Erin? Blimey,
you even get some music that way.   

"Unfortunately I think plain methods suffer from a bit of an image
problem...This is why I was suggesting a "standard 8" plain methods. So
what would I have? Sticking to regular methods (conventional symmetry)
I'd include these 4 Plain Bob & Double Norwich (well you've got to
Double coslany & double sandringham (both entertaining and musical

There are only 6 regular double plain major methods for the sensible
definition of double.  These are Double Bob, Double Oxford, Double
Norwich, Double Mancroft, Double Coslany and Double Sandringham.
Ignoring halflead/leadend variants, there are only four 'distinct'
methods, which are interestingly (& perhaps unsurprisingly) the four
methods that you've chosen.

"Beyond these 4 I think the rest is fairly subjective & I don't have any
strong views"

I think there's elegance (& bags of music) to Chesterfield (-1-6-5-7,2),
and the other halflead/leadend methods in that family
(Maidstone/Levenham/Edmonton).  Similarly the reverses
(Highbury/Marlborough/Shipway/Winchester), though I'm not quite so keen
on these.

"Phil's list is interesting from a structural & compositional point of
view (I had a quick look over the weekend but had very little time) but
they don't offer the variety of interest that one might want"

I don't know - if you just stick to the four more standard symmetry
types, having Double Coslany, Anglia, Double Cambridge and Chesterfield
as your base methods should provide variety, potential and interest.


This communication (including any attachments) is intended for the use of the addressee only and may contain confidential, privileged or copyright material. It may not be relied upon or disclosed to any other person without the consent of the RSC. If you have received it in error, please contact us immediately. Any advice given by the RSC has been carefully formulated but is necessarily based on the information available, and the RSC cannot be held responsible for accuracy or completeness. In this respect, the RSC owes no duty of care and shall not be liable for any resulting damage or loss. The RSC acknowledges that a disclaimer cannot restrict liability at law for personal injury or death arising through a finding of negligence. The RSC does not warrant that its emails or attachments are Virus-free: Please rely on your own screening.

More information about the ringing-theory mailing list