[r-t] Re: Real

[Philip Saddleton]

Robin Woolley said  on 18/02/2005 08:33:

>I said: "Isn't this discussion about 'Real' Double Norwich - this had quite
>a vogue some years ago?"
>
>RAS asked: "What does "Real" mean in this context? Simply that the leads
>remain double?"
>
>GAAT said: "I've always understood "Real" to mean calls at the lead-end
>and/or the half-lead in a double method. Is there another meaning, then?"
>
>I've always been led to believe RAS's idea but GAAT could be correct
>instead.
>
>The 1992 Compositions Index lists six 'real' compositions of Double
>Grandsire Triples (Perrins - '92), DNCB (Butters - '79), Bristol
>(Critchley - '79), Cambridge (Pitman - '60), Double Glasgow (Baldwin - '69)
>and Superlative (Worsley - '66). Perhaps someone could look these up and
>tell us.
>  
>
I said  on 21/12/2004 (on c-r):

I've never understood the application of Real to methods that don't have
Double in the title. Real Double Bob surely means it is really Double -
but why is Bristol with half-lead calls any more really Bristol?

Philip

 From the Clavis (Chapter IX: Double Bob Major):

   The only Double that has been rung for many years past, is
distinguished by the epithet of *Real* Double; now many disputes having
arisen among the connoisseurs of the art, concerning *what is* Real
Double; we think it necessary to premise to the art in general, that we
shall only state fairly the methods that *have been* and *now are*
called and allowed to be Real Double, and then leave them to judge for
themselves, as we shall not ourselves take any active part in the points
of dispute. The first system of Real Double was begun about twenty years
ago, the method of which is to have the first bob when the treble is
behind, and the second bob perhaps at the distance of half a lead from
the first, or perhaps one lead and a half, or two and a half, &c. at
pleasure, the object of the bobs being only to have one behind and one
before alternately, it being sufficient to constitute what they called
Real Double. The other system of Real Double is thus: whenever there is
a bob behind, the bob before *immediately* succeeds, so that there must
be infallibly two bobs in one lead.
   Upon an impartial review of both these methods the following
observations may be deduced; first in both methods, there are as many
bobs behind as before, and consequently as many seventh places as
second's, and as many fifth's as fourth's. Each of these methods have
their partisans, and each contend for their favourite system,. Those for
the former argue, that that must be the most perfect and complete, every
bell making as many places behind as before, and the large bells perform
their regular and constant revolutions undisturbed in *this*, and in
which they are obstructed in the *other*. Nor are the favourers of the
latter without their reasons, (for there never was a heresy yet
broached, but its supporters availed themselves of some incontrovertible
points) for instance, say they, that all Double was spurious and
lop-sided, all agree, until bobs behind were brought up, consequently to
have a bob behind, and perhaps ring a hundred or more changes before the
other bob comes to counterpoise the system and balance it equal when a
bob at the distance of half a lead would have effected it so much
sooner, is no other than that of ringing one hundred or more changes of
lop-sided Double unnecessarily;- and as to obstructing the course or
revolution of the great bells, is no such thing, because the method
being constant and uniform, not only out-braves the objection, but
proves in the end an amendment in the method.
These are the principal arguments generally offered by the different
advocates of Real Double.
   Now with regard to which is the PROPER Real Double, is a matter
which, as we before observed, every one is to decide for himself. It
would be very absurd for us to pretend to determine a point which is and
ever will be *a matter of opinion*.