[r-t] Quarters of cyclic major

[Tim Barnes]

On Dec 5, 2014 12:52 PM, "Don Morrison" <dfm at ringing.org> wrote:
>
> I wonder of one of these might be of any interest?
>
>http://ringing.org/main/pages/quarters/major/other#13598
>
> [Plus 3 other QPs]
>
> The linkage used in all of them is timely, as it has a property
> currently under discussion on this list. Though that was not
> deliberate: it just fell out naturally in devising a simple link
> method that is only four changes long. I suspect most folks ringing it
> would think of it as a major method, and not a sudden change into
> ringing doubles and whatever comes before singles is called, laminated
> together with an interior "cover", for only four blows at a time.

Don raises a good point that it would be messy to have to describe his QPs
as something like 'spliced major and concatenated twos and doubles with an
internal stationary bell', as opposed to allowing his link method to be a
major method.

This is leading me to think it's acceptable for a bell to be in the same
place for all of a method's changes.  But I would also like to see side by
side methods as an allowable form of composition for when this is a more
appropriate description of what was rung (e.g. a 12-bell peal of Cambridge
S Minor over London S Minor) - i.e. without having to name this as a new
Maximus method.  This means the same composition can be decribed in more
than one way, but perhaps that isn't a problem.

Interested to hear if Don's example has changed anyone else's mind.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://bellringers.net/pipermail/ringing-theory/attachments/20141209/b805578e/attachment-0004.html>