[r-t] NS23 methods

King, Peter R peter.king at imperial.ac.uk
Fri Feb 18 23:23:30 UTC 2005

I think this discussion raises the issue of what constitutes a "good" method. Also, what constitutes a good set of methods, which raises the issue of why the "standard" eight? To me a set of methods viewed as standard should have (apart form musical merit - I'm not entering that debate) some sense of progression from a learning point of view and increasing interest as you learn them. Also they should extend reasonably from 8 to 10 to 12 (and possibly a sense of continuity from 6). There should also be variety of construction and lead end order so that having learnt the standard 8 anything new one comes across should be partly familiar.  So Cambridge is a good starting method & possibly Yorkshire. But why Lincolnshire, Superlative & Rutland? Pudsey I might accept as teaching people to ring a method which is the same as one they know (Cambridge) below the treble. London and Bristol I think are fine wrong place methods based on simple construction. So if you are to have a "standard 8" (& 8 is a reasonable no. we could go decimal and have a standard 10) which should they be?

Of course another attribute is that the methods should have flexibility to allow a variety of compositions of whatever music is in vogue at the time.

Whilst on the subject why restrict oneself to surprise methods. What would be a good standard 8 plain methods or TB or even principles (I must say that I find Stedman the most boring method under the sun and cannot understand why so many peals of it are rung - stand back and await the torrent of abuse). Surely it would be useful to have a new standard set in each method type learnable by any reaonable ringer which would add more variety to what is currently rung, give opportunities to composers to come up with new interesting compositions.


-----Original Message-----
From: ringing-theory-bounces at bellringers.net on behalf of Mark Davies
Sent: Fri 18/02/2005 18:36
To: ringing-theory at bellringers.net
Subject: [r-t] NS23 methods
Philip writes,

> Norman Smith's 23, only a handful (if I was being charitable) have some
> sort of merit (Bristol, Cornwall, Double Dublin), with a lesser case for
> Preston, Superlative, Uxbridge, Yorkshire, Cray

Not sure about this Philip: Double Dublin and Cray are both awfully static.
What about Cassiobury - pretty damn good for a right-place method. I'm also
quite a fan of Whalley. Apart from those, I agree NS23 is a pretty poor set
of methods.


ringing-theory mailing list
ringing-theory at bellringers.net

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: winmail.dat
Type: application/ms-tnef
Size: 3827 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://bellringers.net/pipermail/ringing-theory/attachments/20050218/554f4400/attachment-0001.bin>

More information about the ringing-theory mailing list