[r-t] Proportion of Surprise Methods
richard at ex-parrot.com
Tue Mar 24 17:41:49 UTC 2009
Graham John wrote:
> True, but if one were to rethink classification, perhaps a
> more useful distinction would have been between right and
> wrong place methods.
I agree that right-place is an interesting property, and so
I guess wrong-place is useful as the category for everything
that isn't right-place. But too much wrong-place stuff is
uninterestingly wrong place. Take Allendale S Minor: it's
just a trivial variant of (right-place) Westminster.
Or Kent TB: probably a bit more than a 'trivial' variant of
Oxford, but still not interestingly wrong place. Even
something like Adelaide S Major still has the feel of a
right place method that's been shaken about a bit, although
in fact it isn't a trivial variant of a right-place method.
Andrew Johnson wrote:
> Then you could subdivide wrong place treble-bob methods
> into symmetric and asymmetric section methods.
Is that useful? I would put London and Bristol firmly in
the interestly-wrong-place category, though neither have any
asymmetric sections. Perhaps it's useful for distinguishing
'hard' wrong-place methods from 'easy' ones; but even then,
what makes the harder wrong place methods hard is more the
frequent juxtaposition of asymmetric wrong-place sections
and right-place sections, rather than just the presence of
assymetric wrong-place sections.
More information about the ringing-theory