[r-t] Bastow / Cloister

King, Peter R peter.king at imperial.ac.uk
Fri Feb 3 16:53:06 UTC 2006

I think if you were starting from scratch and Grandsire didn't exist you wouldn't invent Grandsire as an extension of Plain Bob, (or indeed any of the other odd from even bell extensions). Why add a hunt bell? The conventional PB triples etc seems just as logical, indeed, as Hayden says, it has the same feel. Even the calls are the same. If Grandsire were a "logical" extension then why don't you make 5ths at a bob instead of 3rds, that would be the extension of the plain bob bob (look at the contortions that people use for DNCB caters bobs).

Clearly it is possible to extend by adding an extra hunt bell, but it isn't the only route and I don't really see why it should be the most natural. Obviously there is alot of history behind this and these methods were developed before these rules were made. Also I suspect it is really a bit of a side issue these days as you can't do this with treble dodging methods and plain methods and odd bell methods (other than stedman or grandsire) are not routinely rung these days.


-----Original Message-----
From: ringing-theory-bounces at bellringers.net on behalf of Hayden Charles
Sent: Fri 03/02/2006 15:20
To: ringing-theory at bellringers.net
Subject: Re: [r-t] Bastow / Cloister
This takes us to one of the byways of the method extension rules.

As we know, by the 'rules' the extension of even-bell Plain Bob to odd 
numbers should be Grandsire, because single-hunt even-bell methods are 
given a second hunt bell. History and tradition prevented re-naming.

 From a practical ringing viewpoint, Plain Bob Doubles/Triples feel more 
like 'Plain Bob' than Grandsire does.

In a similar vein, people ring 'Bastow' doubles by adding 4 blows in 
5ths to Bastow minimus. Again, from a practical viewpoint the feel is 
much more like 'Bastow' and a good basis for progressing to the minor 
and treble-bob.

I can see that from the viewpoint of classifying and naming things, the 
Decisions will prevent a proliferation of names. It seems odd that in 
two commonly-rung examples the effect is so different.

So does the addition of a second hunt bell preserve anything essential 
about the 'base' method, or is it just an an administrative convenience 
to keep the same name?

I did learn to ring in a tower where 'spliced' meant spliced triples 
(Grandsire, Single/Double Oxford etc). Not much of that about these days.

Hayden Charles

Ben Willetts wrote on 03/02/2006 13:50:
> Percy:
>>I believe [Cloister] is a logical extention of Bastow little bob
> Depends what you call 'logical'!  :-)  Bastow is an even-bell method where
> there is one hunt bell, hunting to 2nds and back.  Cloister is an odd-bell
> method where there are two hunt bells, hunting to 3rds and back.  So yes, it
> does seem logical, although it doesn't fit the CC definition of an
> extension.

No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.375 / Virus Database: 267.15.0/249 - Release Date: 02/02/2006

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: 4148 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://bellringers.net/pipermail/ringing-theory/attachments/20060203/4ad8e5e5/attachment-0001.bin>

More information about the ringing-theory mailing list