[r-t] Rotations (was One-lead courses. Results.)

Graham John graham at changeringing.co.uk
Thu Oct 16 15:18:47 UTC 2014

JR1F wrote:

>  If you take calls out of the equation, it's clear that New
> Grandsire is a rotation of Grandsire.  In fact, if you apply
> Grandsire calls, it still looks like Grandsire to me.  It's
> only because different calls are applied that it feels
> like a different method.  I'm sure that's true of lots
> of methods.

This is right. The difference seems greater than single hunt methods because
the symmetry point is between the leading of the two hunt bells and your
calls are either affecting the leading hunt bell or the following hunt bell.
When splicing Grandsire with New Grandsire you would probably want to keep
the treble as the unaffected hunt and therefore when changing
method/restarting, you would also be switching the second hunt bell to be
the bell the other side of the treble as well as altering the position of
the calls. People will probably find the concept of two methods & associated
calls, one the reverse of the other, easier to understand. 

Personally, I think keeping methods invariant through rotation outweighs the
benefits of providing for this complexity within the taxonomy. An
alternative would be to document a convention that when a multiple hunt
method is  prefixed with "New" the method & calls are being rung reversed.
However this conflicts with the existing twin hunt methods - New Bob (Minor
& Major) and New London Court Bob (Caters & Cinques).


More information about the ringing-theory mailing list