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

edward martin edward.w.martin at gmail.com
Wed Jul 23 12:08:49 UTC 2008

2008/7/23 King, Peter R <peter.king at imperial.ac.uk>:

> To be pedantic I would say that we actually ring rows (or permutations or
> whatever) and the changes are what take us from one row to another. so I
> would take the view of defining what we mean by a "legitimate" row. I think
> a sensible definition is any permutation on the n bells being rung which
> includes all the bells striking independently of each other. So you cannot
> omit a bell from a row, you cannot repeat any bell in a row

So this would exclude Alan Winter's .'Cylindrical'. Incidentally he
introduced this to ringers at Washington DC National Cathedral quite a few
years ago and we rang it a bit. My wife gave it the name after realizing
that you could write the changes around a can or cylinder. It was an odd
sensation hunting through bells sometimes at the opposite stroke.

> snip

>  It does seem that the problem arises from trying to retro-fit these
> historical anomalies into modern conceptions. The cleanest thing would be
> simply to accept that there will be these historical anomalies but to keep
> modern definitions as flexible as possible to allow them. Although not
> mathematically perfect I think a good starting point is what a method feels
> like to ring, call and compose for. So Grandsire is completely different in
> all these respects from plain bob, for which, allegedly, it is the odd bell
> extension.

> I agree. But it is ironic that what we now call Bob Minor was in fact
> originally obtained by applying Reverse Grandsire Doubles to the 'working
> bells'. every time the treble was at lead in blocks of plain hunting

Eddie Martin
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://bellringers.net/pipermail/ringing-theory/attachments/20080723/f9638c7b/attachment-0004.html>

More information about the ringing-theory mailing list