[r-t] Old methods

[edward martin]

I attended a lecture by Dr du Sautoy at Oxford on 'music of the primes' and
was fascinated but after I had bought his book,  was later told by
mathematical friends that the subject was better covered by (I think) was it
Derbyshire?? ...can't remember...

Of course one can get a true 5040 of Grandsire triples without using singles
- the judicious use of 5ths place bobs played against 3rds place bobs and
7ths place plain leads can break the q-set parity by linking two leads
together instead of three.

I'm afraid I can't agree with your:
" If 8 blows at lead were generally acceptable say 100 years ago, the
Decisions would allow them now."
In my limited experince, fashions change as eventually do Methods Committee
Chairmen.
The Central Council Collection of Doubles methods 2nd ed 1961, "issued under
the authority of the Council by Rev. K.W.H. Felstead, F.N. Golden, C.H.
Kippin and C.K.Lewis" included Double Grandsire, & New Grandsire, and their
reverses but the Collection of 1980, with nobody's name set to it, had the
Introduction: " The purpose of this Collection is to give a definitive
listing of plain Doubles methods . . ."
Double & New Grandsire were not listed. At the time when I wrote to the RW
to enquire why not, the answer was that for Double Grandsire, there were no
suitable 120s available (I found one & sent it in but received no
acknowledgement other than a friendly letter from Ken Lewis saying how
clever I was). New Grandsire is not included because apparently it is
thought of as being Grandsire but starting at a different place. I have
composed 5040s of Grandsire & of what would be 'New Grandsire' if it
officially existed, but it doesn't!

Eddie Martin
As with the spelling of 'cannons', this is another of my pet peeves and I
suppose I should apologise to those who are bored by my preferences
2008/7/16 Robin Woolley <robin at robinw.org.uk>:

> Richard Smith is quite correct when he remarks on Duckworth being believed
> to be the author of Tintinnalogia. I noticed that Marcus du Sautoy in his
> latest book makes this mistake. It is, unfortunate, that any error such as
> this can become the 'received version'. (The online version gets it wrong
> too!) He also states (effectively) that singles are required to obtain an
> extent of Grandsire Triples (i.e., changing the odd/even sequence of the
> changes). This of course is also not true. WH Thompson was asked as to
> whether an extent could be obtained by common bobs alone - thus preserving
> the odd/even sequence of the changes. Thompson said no, but Holt had
> already
> used 'in-course' singles to produce extents. (See p56 of Change Ringing
> History vol 3.)
>
> It seems there is some misunderstanding of the current CC Decisions. Since
> 2002, the Council has NOT *recognised* any peal whatsoever. Since then,
> there are two types of peal-length performance. Those which comply with the
> Decisions and those which do not. Those that do are 'included in the
> analysis' - which to most intents and purposes means inclusion in the
> table,
> published this year at CC supplement page 478. Those which don't are listed
> separately with details of their non-compliance. This fulfils Oscar Wilde's
> dictum concerning the only thing worse than being talked about! (Compliant
> peals are effectively not talked about.)
>
> It must be remembered that the original Decisions were based on what was
> seen to be acceptable to most ringers at the time. If 8 blows at lead were
> generally acceptable say 100 years ago, the Decisions would allow them now.
> Quite clearly, there is no general clamour to ring these methods which
> Eddie
> Martin lists. Richard mentions London Pleasure. The changes are all single
> with the third making 12 blows at the back at one point.
>
> In conclusion, if the exercise at large 'likes' a method, it is rung; if it
> is not-liked, it becomes obsolete (very quickly, in some cases).
>
> Best wishes
> 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/20080716/b66240b8/attachment-0004.html>