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

Don Morrison dfm at ringing.org
Fri Jul 18 21:45:17 UTC 2008

On Fri, Jul 18, 2008 at 4:35 PM, Mark Davies <mark at snowtiger.net> wrote:
> Don writes,
>> Starting methods with hunt bells in different places generally means you
>> have a different hunt bell. To most ringers I think this would feel like a
>> more radical change.
> Hmm, I don't really think so. It would feel unfamiliar to someone not used
> to ringing, say, variable hunt, but not to someone who is.

Sorry, I wasn't trying to say "ringing Cambridge with the 3 as the
hunt bell makes it a different method."

In fact, I think (I've not gone back to double check what I wrote, so
may be mistaken) I even pointed out that ringing Grandsire rotated so
that the 3 is the "primary" hunt bell (that is, serving the role the
treble normally fills) would still feel like Grandsire.

The problem is that in New Grandsire we've exchanged the roles the two
hunt bells fill. Which is primarily, though not exclusively, apparent,
of course, only when there are calls. All of which probably explains
why Eddie's level of irritation seems to be about equivalent when he
bemoans the current Decisions' view of "calls are not part of methods"
and their view that "Grandsire and New Grandsire are the same method".

> But that seems rather silly to me, too. You could still ring New Grandsire
> with the ordinary Grandsire calls. Or, presumably, you could ring Grandsire
> with New Grandsire calls. The call isn't part of the method.

As pencil headed, number fiddling geeks you and I would view ringing
New Grandsire with Grandsire calls as perfectly straightforward. But
to many less number findlingly inclined ringers it would be
nonsensical. To many ringers the definition of a Grandsire bob is "we
make early thirds as the hunt bell passes from 2nds place to lead, and
otherwise just ring a plain lead." But in New Grandsire there's
absolutely no difference between that and a plain lead.

If it is our desire to never name a new method because there is some
way of viewing it as something else, why are we willing to accept
Stedman as a distinct principle? All it is is spliced Erin and Bastow,
with a change of method at every lead end. And why have a method
Single Court Minor? It's really just original.

The problem with the Grandsire/New Grandsire argument is that both
points of view are reasonable, in their own terms.

Don Morrison <dfm at ringing.org>
"The art of flying is to throw yourself at the ground and miss."
          -- Douglas Adams, _The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy_

More information about the ringing-theory mailing list