[r-t] Grandsire, et al.

Leigh Simpson simple57uk at yahoo.co.uk
Sun Apr 16 10:42:17 UTC 2006

> In (partial) reply to Peter King, the standard
> answer as to why G(2n+1) 
> should be the extension of PB(2n) is that neither
> PB(2n) nor G(2n+1) has no 
> '4ths place at the back'. PB(2n+1) and G(2n) both
> do!
> Robin

Yes, everybody agrees with this, and understands the
reasons behind the description. But it still doesn't
quite make sense. "Clearly" PB Triples is a logical
extension of PB Minor. The CC saying they're different
is completely at odds with what most ordinary ringers
think. I suppose ordinary ringers are wrong about a
lot of things, but I think if a name is in regular use
then it should be enshrined. Making an exception to
the extension rules is a clumsy way of doing this. Not
only this, but adding four blows at the back is also
common for other things. Again, "clearly" Bastow
Little Bob and Bistow Little Bob are the same method.
Not calling them by the same name seems rather silly.

I suppose I'm scraping the barrel a little bit, and
not presenting the clearest arguments, but I do think
it's intuitively obvious that these pairs of methods
are the same, and that this should be enshrined in the
extension rules.


Yahoo! Photos – NEW, now offering a quality print service from just 7p a photo http://uk.photos.yahoo.com

More information about the ringing-theory mailing list