mark at snowtiger.net
Fri May 21 20:50:29 UTC 2010
> Yes, but perhaps it is because they had proved everything to their
> satisfaction with Minor, where the problem doesn't occur because of the
> nature of the rows. They then just applied the same logic of checking the
> leadheads and leadends.
Hmm, possibly. But I don't buy that either - the nature of the rows had
been known for over a century, and they knew all too clearly that
Grandsire Doubles was a completely different beast from Grandsire
Triples (for example). Blindly applying rules from six bells to eight
doesn't sound like something your average 18th Century hotshot should
> in the process
> is managing to come across as rude and obnoxious
Yeah I know - a bit of obnoxiousness every now and then is important,
just so you don't think I'm nice all the time. ;-)
There is a serious point here, though, which I'm trying to make. If
you're a composer, you know how to get from one lead to another, yes?
Most people work that out for themselves. It's called transposition. But
then what do you do if you want to see what other leads your new lead is
false against? It's the same process - you transpose one change by
another, and you get a false lead head.
Since you're using the same skills for both processes, and you need at
least one of them to be a composer at all, I don't get how you could put
a touch together, but not be able to understand falseness (at least at a
simple level of one lead against another).
Yes, understanding falseness groups, and why for instance some course
heads are always found together in Major but can be separate in Royal,
is a lot more tricky and requires a bit of mathematical thinking,
perhaps. Having someone explain that is useful. But the basic idea of,
I've got a lead with lots of changes in, let's find out what other leads
have at least one of the same changes, seems fundamental to the way your
mind has to be able to work if you are going to string a touch together.
Am I wrong?
More information about the ringing-theory