[r-t] Definition of a call

[edward martin]

On 8 June 2011 18:48, Matt Dawson <matt.dawson at cantab.net> wrote:

> On 8 June 2011 14:54, edward martin <edward.w.martin at gmail.com> wrote:
> > 3: I think that it is backward moving to allow a call to alter the length
> > of the recognised structure of a method. Keeping the treble as PH, John
> Holt
> > did produce a 720 of Bob Minor in which using 4th place bobs the PH was
> > called to dodge 5-6 up (adding 2 rows to the lead block); make 4ths,
> > (subtracting 4 rows from the lead block, and to dodge 5-6 down (adding 2
> > rows to the lead block) thus allowing for all 720 changes of Bob Minor to
> be
> > produced without the need for singles. As clever as this was, it never
> > caught on in popularity and stands as a unique quirk of mathematics.
>
> I'm sorry, I don't agree with this at all. Dixonoids aside, I'd be
> very interested in seeing Holt's 720 and possibly giving it a try.
>

So you would allow for a method structure to be cut up into any number
of slices, sewn back together in any way you like - some bits forward PN
with others reverse PN - and still insist that you are ringing the orginal
method?  If the method is palindromic about the path of the treble  then
pesumably if the treble continues her regular hunting path  it would still
appear to be the same method with some leads lengthened and others
shortened.  but if the method is not pallindromic then the inevitable  flow
of PN running in reverse would yield a different method...but not according
to you?

John Holt's 720 of Bob Minor is a bit of a red herring in that in that
instance there clearly is a lengthening or shortening of lead blocks as far
as the path of the treble is concerned and this, I suppose, would now be
allowable as being Plain Bob using usual bobs when treble is at lead plus
three type (b) calls to affect the path of the treble.

My question is  why did they have to insist that changing primary hunt bells
in Grandsire triples = a 'bob' or whatever they needed to call it?
I have every confidence that the composer did not think in that way and
neither did the peal band. As I've said: If we start ringing Grandsire
Triples with 1 as primaryhunt (PH) we immediately make 3rds in anticipation
of plain hunting through the remaining rows of the lead block with 1 as the
PH. However, if a new PH is called for, this is in no way a 'bob' and
doesn't need to be defined as such, we have simply entered a new lead block
with a different PH. The old PH is now a working bell and its position in
the new lead block is totally irrelevant to where it would have been had
there been no change of PH. This sounds like fun to ring and doesn't  need
the complication of a specially designed 'bob' or whatever it's to be
called... what a waste of time

Here is the 720 of Bob Minor by John Holt (bobbed rows) where even though
some of the structure is rung in reverse it comes out OK as still being Bob
Minor,
23564
465213
53264
42536
54236
54362
456123
35462
43562
25436
25364
32564
465321
45236
45362
34562
25346
25463
42563
35426
35264
for plain 23456

Based on the q-set
call treble to dodge 5-6 up
456231
465213
make 4ths
456123
465132
dodge 5-6 down
456312
465321
It's really interesting in that starting off with the calling WHW The treble
is called to dodge up and from there until she's called to make 4ths, the
structure of the calling runs in reverse to become  WHH... the out of course
changes are completed by the time she is called 5-6 down to return to the
original WHW for the in-course changes. even so it apparently never caught
on as an idea although a similar technique was known and used to produce
bobs only 5040s of Bob Triples (call 7 in, 4ths and out )

Eddie Martin
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://bellringers.net/pipermail/ringing-theory/attachments/20110609/043f9092/attachment-0004.html>