[r-t] Grandsire and New Grandsire
andrew_johnson at uk.ibm.com
Tue Jul 1 13:56:53 UTC 2014
> From: "Graham John" <graham at changeringing.co.uk>
> If someone were to ring spliced Grandsire and New Grandsire, it a
> reasonable question to ask how it is best defined in a way that can
> be universally applied (there are a large number of twin hunt and
> multiple hunt methods). The current decisions say that they are the
> same method, and I don't think that is an unreasonable stance, but
> it would be nice to see a consistent convention for recording a
> composition and reporting a performance that contains these method
> isomers. Does anyone have any suggestions?
No suggestions, but can't switching from Grandsire to New Grandsire
be done with a call omitting a couple of changes.
Perhaps we just need one big method with all the place notations
and we can use calls which omit changes to get any touch we like.
If you allow false methods then just define a method which contains
all the possible extents/peals inside and omit the changes you don't
need. It might be silly to ring two methods with two names differing
only in the omitted changes in the composition.
Unless stated otherwise above:
IBM United Kingdom Limited - Registered in England and Wales with number
Registered office: PO Box 41, North Harbour, Portsmouth, Hampshire PO6 3AU
More information about the ringing-theory