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

[Graham John]

Eddie wrote:

 

> I'm not following your argument too well. 

> In the half-peal of Grandsire & New Grandsire that I posted this morning,

>  nothing has to jump anywhere

 

Not if you can call it spliced Grandsire and New Grandsire, but following
the "they are both Grandsire argument", you could splice Grandsire with
itself on a new start basis to describe your composition. However, if all we
are doing is trying to explain clearly what is rung, then I don't see a
problem with giving inverted Grandsire the name New Grandsire. In any event,
there is nothing to stop you ringing it like that. The Methods committee
could only influence how the peal should appear in print.

 

Graham  

 

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://bellringers.net/pipermail/ringing-theory/attachments/20080719/53420d85/attachment-0004.html>