[r-t] RE: Method Review

Richard Grimmett richard at grimmett.org
Thu Feb 17 22:50:11 UTC 2005

I reckon you are missing the point of music.  Music flows, and so do
changes.  Grandsire Triples flows, all who can actually hear ringing
surely must agree with this?  Stedman Triples flows.  Cambridge major
flows (I know this is contentious).  Scientific triples doesn't.

So what is 'flow'?  It’s the succession of changes.  Don't think of one
change in its own right - its how it  comes up that’s important too.  I
have never seriously tried to define what I mean by flow in this
context, but I am very seriously convinced that it is a crucial
ingredient to a method.

After a peal of Scientific a few years ago I mentioned in the pub that I
didn't like the music of the method.  Some bright spark told me that it
had all the usual 5040 changes in it!  I pointed out that it’s the order
that counts.


> A very subjective subject but...
> At the end of the day, CRU's are just not musical.
> Can someone explain to me why the vast majority of Surprise 
> Major ringers 
> and composers think that rows like XXXX4578 are musical?
> I've been thinking about this for a while and I might 
> actually take pen to 
> paper and write an article about musical rows.
> There are main types of musical row
> The Round type - (4 runs and above)
> Queens type - ( Melodic and harmonic changes )
> and the Tittums type - (coursing music)
> There are also rows which do not fall into any of those 
> catagories well - 
> e.g 6578.
> Any thoughts I'll be pleased to hear them and I'll get going 
> on writing this 
> artical

No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.300 / Virus Database: 265.8.8 - Release Date: 14/02/2005

More information about the ringing-theory mailing list