[r-t] Rotations, New Grandsire etc.

[Robert Bennett]

	 Could have NEW NEW MINOR  and   New New London Court Caters

----- Original Message -----
 From:ringing-theory at bellringers.net
To:
Cc:
Sent:Thu, 16 Oct 2014 16:18:47 +0100
Subject:Re: [r-t] Rotations (was One-lead courses. Results.)

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).

Graham

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