[r-t] Methods [was Grandsire/New Grandsire, etc]

edward martin edward.w.martin at gmail.com
Tue Jul 22 19:25:53 UTC 2008

How complicated it all gets. I've just been reading Stedman's book for the
umpteenth time. He was a change-ringer and explained everything in his day
with simple notes that simple folk could understand...but we've progressed
since then haven't we?  ;-)

2008/7/22 Mark Davies <mark at snowtiger.net>:

> Don writes,
> > The problem I see is you applying "change ringing" to a subset of what we
> > do ...
> > By appropriating the historical, overarching term for just a subset of
> > what we you, undoubtedly without meaning to do so, apply a strong,
> > implicit value judgement.
> Ach, you're probably right Don. We're only arguing about names for things,
> but I agree names are important. How about we do as you suggest, and adopt
> "change ringing" as the generic term for anything involving bells being
> rung
> in changing sequences - so that would include plain changes, dixonoids,
> cylindricals, and jump changes.
> But now having encompassed all these fields within the scope of
> "changeringing", we need a new term for "ordinary" methods and ringing
> where
> bells only move one place, like we are used to. So I propose "Real
> Changeringing" or "Proper Changeringing". Is that OK with everyone?
> :-)
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20080722/94d93c4d/attachment-0004.html>

More information about the ringing-theory mailing list