# [r-t] Methods [was Grandsire/New Grandsire, etc]

Mark Davies mark at snowtiger.net
Fri Jul 18 20:33:51 UTC 2008

```Robin Woolley writes,

> Maybe it's me, but I can never get my head around those who *need* their
> outre performances to be 'accepted' by someone else. Who do you ring a
> peal for?

I covered this in my articles for the RW a few years back. The point is that
the Methods Committee does all the work of recording names for methods and
maintaining the method libraries. So if you want to ring and name a new
method, you are forced to comply with their rules for methods and for peals.
Yes, you could ring your method and call it what you want, but no-one is
ever going to recognise the name, because it's not in the method libraries.

This is very very important indeed!

Matthew Frye:

> If you can ring 4 consecutive blows then why not 6? why not 8? why not 12?
> why not 50? I personally don't particularly see a need for more than 4 or
> 6 at most, but I am guessing that you would never be happy with any limit

I covered this in my Norwich axioms, too. It's very simple: allow any number
of consecutive blows, up to but not including the point where one bell is
ringing in the same place for the entire plain course. Because by that
point, you've got a method on the next lower stage of bells, not on the
current stage.

Peter King:

> Is there anything that you would define as being essential to change
> ringing, an absolute minimum below which you would not go?

My belief is that, if it's changeringing, then we should be ringing changes.
To me a change is a permutation from one row to another, where each bell
only moves at most one place. (I've nothing against jump changes, I just
don't think methods using jump changes are changeringing methods. They're
jumpchanging methods. I know others disagree.) Truth of rows rung is also
vital (otherwise why would we need changes). Other than that, anything
goes - and not just goes, but should be nameable and classifiable.

MBD

```