[r-t] New Grandsire [was Old methods]

Don Morrison dfm at ringing.org
Fri Jul 18 11:52:10 UTC 2008

On Fri, Jul 18, 2008 at 5:27 AM, Simon Humphrey <sh at keystrata.co.uk> wrote:
> It was in the 60's that the worth of a composition came to be measured,
> regrettably I think now, by the number of combination roll-ups it contained.
> For many methods, singles enabled a big increase in cru's to be obtained,
> and consequently the use of singles in surprise became acceptable and
> eventually normal.

This, however, is not in anyway an argument that using singles in
surprise was a bad idea, surely? They allow the inclusion of a lot
more interesting music of other sorts, too. Just because crus are an
out of fashion (and mercifully so) measure of musical worth doesn't
mean an effort to make peals more ear tickling is a bad idea. I, and
I'm sure many others, have a lot more fun ringing peals that have lots
of aurally attractive rows. And singles also got a lot of twelve bell
ringers to the pub a few minutes earlier after their peals.

It is an example of an innovation of value. However, as you say, in
this case it was not one impeded by a CC Decision, just by the
conventions of the time.

Sadly my knowledge of how the ringing community functioned in the
1940s is very limited. I do wonder if perhaps we've had a bit of a
change of mindset and perspective since then, and that is why the
introduction of such an innovation did not run afoul of rules at that
time? Can anyone shed light on that, one way or the other?

On Fri, Jul 18, 2008 at 1:58 AM, Philip Earis <pje24 at cantab.net> wrote:
> A couple of people have also talked about variable hunt cinques,
> etc. This is another failure on behalf of the method committee,
> firstly in the reluctance to permit something, and then in that the
> description they used is incredibly inelegant. It is a lot neater to
> describe "variable hunt stedman cinques" simply as stedman maximus.
> But they felt unable to do this due to six consecutive blows.

Is "variable hunt" just a typo for "variable cover", or do you really
think of the covering bell as a hunt bell? I suppose according to the
current Decisions definitions it would be, but I doubt most practical
ringers think of it that way.

> easier to ring (ringers tend to go wrong at
> "plains" in my experience)!

While much of what you say in favor of exchanging the definition of
plain and bobbed leads of Grandsire makes sense, I don't think this
does. I believe the reason it is the plain leads folks go wrong at is
that the conductor shouting "bob" tells the ringers "this is where we
dodge". If you exchange the bobs and plains, then the folks that
currently go wrong at plain leads will go wrong at the new-plain leads

Curiously, a course of Grandsire Major bobbed leads is not a
differential hunter. Though of course it then runs afoul of the four
consecutive blows issue.

Don Morrison <dfm at ringing.org>
"Excess on occasion is exhilarating.  It prevents moderation from
acquiring the deadening effect of a habit."
                                        -- W. Somerset Maugham

More information about the ringing-theory mailing list