[r-t] What is a 'regular' method

[Simon J. Gay]

I think the main use I would make of the term "regular" would be in the phrase "regular lead ends", meaning Plain Bob lead ends.

It does seem that methods with non-regular lead ends are less favoured, but I think this is largely for the following practical reasons:

- With non-regular lead ends, you don't have the familiar (from regular lead ends) system for relating the coursing order to the lead end, so for a particular non-regular lead end, the conductor would have to learn the relevant system; this makes it more difficult to work out which place bells people should be ringing in the event of a mistake.

- Methods with non-regular lead ends don't have their falseness groups catalogued according to the standard system, which makes it difficult to find off-the-shelf compositions.

- The place bell order has to be learnt explicitly; it won't be one of the familiar orders arising from regular lead ends.

These points are probably of little concern to a composer/conductor who is going to

(1) design a method and produce a composition to get the best from it
(2) ring with a band who don't need many familiar features in order to learn methods, and are able to ring them without needing to be put right.

So I would advocate using "regular" *only* in the phrase "regular lead ends", and not talking about "regular methods" at all; certainly not describing particular structural features such as single changes, four blows in one place etc. as "irregular".


Simon Gay



On 6 Feb 2012, at 17:13, Matthew Frye wrote:

>
> On 6 Feb 2012, at 07:26, Alex Hunt wrote:
>> Criteria 5 & 6 might benefit from an exception for lead heads.
>>
>> Plain Bob at odd stages should be saved from being "irregular!.
>
> Well, I think this (and the rest of the thread) shows the utter futility of attempting to set in stone what is "regular". It also shows the futility of trying to set a single set of rules (for anything) that apply equally well across many stages/types of method.
> Plain bob triples is *obviously* a regular method, but I don't think many would think of surprise minor methods with 4 blows in one position as regular.
>
> I think you are really best describing precisely what you mean by regular each time you use it unless it is obvious from context, eg "41 regular surprise minor".
>
> MF
> _______________________________________________
> ringing-theory mailing list
> ringing-theory at bellringers.net
> http://bellringers.net/mailman/listinfo/ringing-theory_bellringers.net


The University of Glasgow, charity number SC004401