[r-t] Grandsire, et al.

[King, Peter R]

Yes that's true of course. However, I could also argue that plain bob has all dodges in 34, 56, etc and Grandsire has its dodges in 45, 67, etc and so the methods are not the same. It is certainly this feature which first grabs the attention of learners. Also many learners (including myself about a zillion years ago) first learn pb doubles and then progress to minor so having 4 blows behind doesn't seem that strange (was pb 6 rung before or after pb 5 does anyone know?). 

I think the point is that all extensions must, by definition, introduce new work not in the original. This new work may be very similar to the original but in a different place. The simplest being just the dodges in plain bob - in major you get a 78 dodge, obviously not present in the minor. In cambridge you introduce new sets of places and new bits of treble dodging. In London Major there are bits of work completely non-existent in the minor (if you look at it entirely from a blue line point of view). Yet clearly these methods are strongly linked to eachother. So when extending methods it seems to me there are many options possible (above the rather formulaic structures permitted by the rules). Surely the point is to choose the least of all the evils, which is rather subjective and therefore probably best left to precedent (which the rules should seek to encapsulate) or the views of the band first to ring the method.

Returning to the odd/even bell method issue I think there is a problem. Clearly this can only apply to plain methods. Then methods like plain bob, St Simons/Clements the extension from what it feels like are not the usual ones. So I would view St Simons as a more natural extension to St Clemetns than the usual one. This kind of extension, however, would collapse for methods like D Oxford where the usual route of adding a treble appears to solve the problem, but for the reasons that I give for Grandsire I don't think do. PErhaps then it is a mistake to try to extend even bell methods to odd (and vice versa) and the methods should simply be considered as related rather than extensions. I realise that this would upset some humdred years tradition and a whole set of rules so I don't know that I would actually propose it. But if one were starting all over again then I don't think one would necessarily end up at the same point as where we are now.


-----Original Message-----
From: ringing-theory-bounces at bellringers.net on behalf of Robin Woolley
Sent: Sun 16/04/2006 08:36
To: ringing-theory at bellringers.net
Subject: Re: [r-t] Grandsire, et al.
 
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



_______________________________________________
ringing-theory mailing list
ringing-theory at bellringers.net
http://bellringers.net/mailman/listinfo/ringing-theory_bellringers.net

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://bellringers.net/pipermail/ringing-theory/attachments/20060416/6f5698e1/attachment-0004.html>