[r-t] #6 Rotations

Tim Barnes tjbarnes23 at gmail.com
Sat Oct 18 20:46:34 UTC 2014

So clearly we're now debating #6 on the list (rotations) as opposed to #4
(four consecutive blows)!  So let's continue with #6 and bring it to a vote
when ready, and then go back to #4, and then to #5 (the null change).  As a
couple of people raised, I would then plan for us to move on to debating
calls (including whether they have any link to methods, or are fully
independent), cover bells, truth, where dixonoids fit in, etc, etc.

It looks as though #6 may be a closer vote than our previous votes.  Below
is an attempt to summarize the pros and cons of allowing / not allowing
rotations to be separately named, based on what's been posted so far, plus
my own views.

I guess the good news on the rotation question is that, unlike some of the
other points we've voted on, this doesn't affect what is allowed to be rung
(i.e. a peal that is included in the analysis), only what it can be named.

Cons of allowing rotations to be separately named:

1. Seems too trivial for the 12 rotations of Stedman to each have separate
2. Potentially produces more work for those who record named methods.

Pros of allowing rotations to be separately named:

1. Some rotations would feel quite different to learn and ring compared
with the unrotated method.  So seems reasonable for these to be named
separately so that ringers are clear on what is to be rung.
2. It facilitates spliced 're-starts' - e.g. in Stedman you might change to
a different method that is a rotation of Stedman, thereby turning a six
into a four and changing the coursing order.  Maybe this has some
compositional value.
3. Methods like New Grandsire can be separately named - has some history.
4. While separately naming rotations feels like having overlap, in our
previous votes we've accepted there will be some overlap in method
definition.  Magenta (with a 10-row lead) could be separately named as a
2-row lead differential.  Now that we've agreed to have one-lead course
methods, Plain Hunt could be named in addition to Original.  A method that
is two leads of Cambridge Major could be named as a new method because
we're allowing false plain courses and not requiring leads not to be
divisible.  Given all this, it seems inconsistent to restrict the separate
naming of rotations.

Are there other pros and cons to add to this list to build up a picture for
the vote?

My view is that rotations should be allowed to be separately named, and
it's then up to the band to decide if they want to publish what they rang
as, say, Stedman with a non-standard start, or a differently-named method
that is a rotation of Stedman.  Overall, and based on our previous votes, I
think it's too restrictive to say no rotation can be separately named, and
it would be too messy to try and come up with rules that say some rotations
(e.g. Stedman) can't be separately named because they're too trivial, while
other rotations that feel sufficiently different to ring can be separately

There's also the point of whether we shouldn't take this as a "yes / no"
question, but consider having a separate sub-category of method (e.g.
'variation') where, for example, New Grandsire can be separately named as
Grandsire using different calls and a different start.  Personally I would
vote against this as, at least so far in this debate, I think all
traditional change ringing (excluding dixonoids, cylindrical, jump changes)
can be easily and simply described as a combination of methods, calls
(which are independent of methods) and cover bells.  Adding additional
categorization seems to be introducing unnecessary complexity.  Not saying
my view won't change as the debate continues..


More information about the ringing-theory mailing list