[r-t] Grandsire and New Grandsire

Graham John graham at changeringing.co.uk
Tue Jul 1 16:36:49 UTC 2014

Andrew Johnson wrote:

> No suggestions, but can't switching from Grandsire
> to New Grandsire be done with a call omitting a
> couple of changes.

Indeed, and maybe all that is required is for the composition to define the
calls that omit rows, and the performance to be described as Grandsire. In
this, it would be the same as the Cambridge restart examples we discussed
recently. If we are to come up with a new set of definitions, it is worth
making sure that they accommodate issues like this already identified.

> 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.

I assume this is tongue-in-cheek. Nevertheless, the purpose of methods is
surely to provide structure for ringers to pre-learn work that results in
the conductor having to make fewer calls. This would be going in the
opposite direction. The ultimate is Differentials, since they can provide
the longest length using the shortest method. 


More information about the ringing-theory mailing list