[r-t] Restriction #4

[Robert Bennett]

	What about Slough Big Bob? Does the tenor do enough to be
considered an inside bell? 

	Or what about "BAGPIPE TRIPLES" (Grandsire Doubles with 7,6,8
covering). 

	 

----- Original Message -----
 From:ringing-theory at bellringers.net
To:
Cc:
Sent:Sun, 30 Nov 2014 04:12:08 +0000
Subject:Re: [r-t] Restriction #4

On 30 Nov 2014, at 03:21, Don Morrison  wrote:

> On Sat, Nov 29, 2014 at 9:38 PM, Matthew Frye  wrote:
>> May I suggest this is the sort of weirdness that is maybe better
considered
>> when thinking about cover bells and similar? The 6th really isn't
part of
>> any method, it is an internal "cover" bell. You *do* have two lots
of
>> doubles, so don't call it Cinques.
> 
> If you are going to prohibit calling that cinques, does not the same
logic
> prohibit calling the following major?
> 
> x45x45 le 256 (producing lead head 13425786)
> 
> But, according to today's rules, that *is* major, a perfectly legal
> little plain differential major method.
> 
> And, with Tim's example, a band might choose to ring the same thing,
> but with calls moving one or more bells between the front and back
> sixes, at which time it would surely become cinques? So you'd be in
> the rather unfortunate situation of having two different methods,
one of
> cinques, and one of something else, but with exactly the same place
> notation; and which one you were ringing would depend upon which
calls
> you chose to use. Particularly entertaining if you spliced them.

Personally if I were ringing a plain course of that major method I
would think of that as two lots of bob minimus, regardless of what the
rules tell me it is. For a touch, yes how I think of it (and what I
call it) would probably depend upon the calls used, although the rules
shouldn't force me down either path. And in fact nothing in the
proposed limitation on bells moving at least once a lead would do
anything to stop that method being named as a major method (nor should
it).

My real problem with Tim's example is the 6th ringing as an effective
internal cover bell. In his message he implied that a band may wish to
leave it there for e.g. an entire quarter. In any case, if you do wish
to change the internal cover, or move bells between the front set of
doubles and the back set with calls, I think there would be nothing
problematic conceptually with still acknowledging the plain method(s)
is(/are) two sets of doubles. I would see it as entirely analogous to
a variable cover call.

I have no problem with what is being suggested that people might ring.
I just feel that if a bell does not move in the course of a lead then
that bell has not taken part in that method, and so should be
acknowledged as a static or "cover" bell of some kind, separate from
the method. And yes, the rules on/classification of cover bells should
be loosened/generalised to allow such things, but that's another
issue.

MF

_______________________________________________
ringing-theory mailing list
ringing-theory at bellringers.net
http://bellringers.net/mailman/listinfo/ringing-theory_bellringers.net

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://bellringers.net/pipermail/ringing-theory/attachments/20141130/b65e8fe1/attachment-0004.html>