[r-t] Lead-based methods [was: Poll on consecutive blows in the same position]

Iain Anderson iain at 13to8.co.uk
Mon Dec 29 15:01:49 UTC 2014

Mark Davies wrote:
> Ander writes,
>> Can someone explain to me what a lead-based method is, and how it 
>> differs
>> from a non-lead-based method?
> LBMs are defined by a finite sequence of changes (place notation). 
> RBMs can be based on finite sequences of changes, but in addition 
> apply rules *dependent on the position of individual bells*. This 
> means that they cannot be defined by a sequence of changes, since 
> those changes vary depending on where the bells are.

One of the problems that I have with separating LBMs from RBMs is that 
in my mind they aren't mutually exclusive.
The 7 particle methods are a classic example.  I have learnt and rung 
Top, Up, Strange, Down, Charm, Bottom, and Meson as rule-based methods 
because it is a lot, lot simpler to treat them as a series of rules 
rather than a set of traditional blue lines.  They are all based on how 
you interact with your buddy bell.  Sure, the place notation is fixed; 
there is a concept of fixed leads; it even makes sense to define them in 
a database the same way that lead-based methods are defined, but I 
wouldn't recommend learning them that way.  They have more in common 
with Dixon's than they do with Orion.

Of the other people that have rung them, I'd be interested to know what 
they think.  Are they lead-based or rule-based?  Is it possible to even 
make a meaningful distinction between the two cases for methods like this?


More information about the ringing-theory mailing list