[r-t] Methods [was Grandsire/New Grandsire, etc]
mark at snowtiger.net
Sat Jul 19 12:58:54 UTC 2008
> You are standing outside a tuneful little six ...
> imagine the band is ringing a touch of Cambridge Treble Jump.
Yes, you're right, and I like this example Don. However I suppose "little
six" is the operative word here. My major philosophical objections to jump
changes being considered as changeringing are:
1. The whole historical backbone of changeringing, and the reason for the
development of methods and composition as we know them, is founded on the
idea of changing bells moving not more than one place. Often, innovation
thrives within a framework, and this is undoubtedly a good framework
2. For "Normal" changes we have a nice clear boundary. It's not so clear to
me what the boundaries are for jump changes. How far can a bell jump?
Presumably it depends on what tower and bell you're ringing. So some
compositions couldn't be rung at all towers (or at least, not well); and you
could do more in hand than you could in tower. It's just a bit vague in my
mind really - maybe that's just me.
Anyway, these aren't objections to jump ringing per se, just reasons why I'd
like to classify "ordinary" changeringing as something different from jump
> You are a reactionary preserver of the status quo, trying to stifle
> innovation :-)
Ah, but no! Because what I would do, if I were in charge of the Methods
Committee, would be to record and attempt to classify anything to do with
bellringing. I would put "normal" changeringing methods in a category of
their own, yes. Jump methods, cylindrical methods, dixonoids, anything else,
I would catalogue as best as I could, looking initially to the originators
for their ideas about classification. Description and catalogue, that'd be
my job. Not prescription and omission, as we have now.
Do I get any votes? :-)
More information about the ringing-theory