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

Mark Davies mark at snowtiger.net
Tue Jul 22 23:21:23 UTC 2008

Mew writes,

> Well that is a sad reflection on the current state of affairs & your
> thinking. Here you have a method that's been with us from the beginning,
> that has a plain course forced upon it so that smart arses can categorise
> all change ringing methods as having plain courses, when clearly it is
> incidental to the methid's principle

Hmm, well: are you saying you want Grandsire treated as a special case? How
many other special cases are there? It's fairly useful being able to provide
a method library with names and plain courses for (virtually) everything
that we ring today. I'm not sure many people are canvassing for Grandsire
and Reverse Grandsire and their calls and extents to be recognised as
separate entities. Most people are too busy trying to get on the ladder that
leads to Surprise Major, Rutland or no Rutland.

But, I agree with you from the historical perspective. As a young ringer, I
remember being fascinated, after learning Grandsire Doubles plain course
first, then bobs and singles, reading that fabulous book Grandsire, and
discovering that the old men viewed the method in a completely different
way, that the plain course didn't exist for them at all. It was a paradigm
shift, and threw things into a new light for me (and a new realm of mixed
metaphors, clearly).

However this is the 21st Century Eddie, it is a battle lost many old years
ago... Sorry! The new world is not so bad at all, and we still remember the 
old - some of us.


More information about the ringing-theory mailing list