[r-t] 5040 Surprise Minor by Roger Bailey

[Matthew Frye]

On 12 May 2014, at 18:54, Simon Gay <Simon.Gay at glasgow.ac.uk> wrote:

> 
> This well-known composition appears in Composition 500 with the claim that it is true to "any method", and is sometimes published without any statement about which methods it is true to.

> Is it generally realised that it is not true to methods such as Gangnam Surprise Minor (x3x4x2x3x34.2.3 le 2) which don't have the "usual" pattern of positive and negative rows in a lead?
> 
> When I say "generally realised", I don't just mean whether subscribers to ringing-theory would know. I am wondering about the interpretation of "any method" by a typical conductor.

I seem to remember this usually being qualified as "any *regular* method".

I don't know but Composition 500 may be old enough for "any method" to then have been enough of a restriction. If you still needed to be able to get a true 720 to name a method, there are probably fairly few possible cases which can generate extents without also being true to Bailey's 5040. And if any such cases were known about, they probably weren't rung.

(I presume it *is* possible under favourable circumstances to get extents of some of these methods with unusual +/- patterns? I have a feeling this has been discussed here before, but would welcome a reminder of an example.)

In answer to your question, no, it is almost certainly not generally realised. The statement "any method" seems pretty unambiguous and most people would need a good reason to look any deeper. Even if they were aware of the positive/negative rows issue, I find many ringers (conductors) simply lack the intellectual curiosity to bother asking how a claim like that could possibly apply to a method like Gangman (beyond the obvious "it has some singles in it").

MF