[r-t] Single-lead methods
Mark Davies
mark at snowtiger.net
Thu Apr 20 23:45:35 UTC 2017
To flesh out my thoughts about single-lead methods:
Firstly, I'm not convinced there really are either hunt bells or working
bells in a single-lead method. Neither tag really makes much sense to me
when there is no repeating lead structure. Historically, "hunt" has had
a very specific meaning of "ringing a fixed pattern whilst other bells
vary".
If we take Bristol Major and apply a 12 leadhead, all the bells have the
same cycle order: 1. Nevertheless to most ringers, the treble still
looks like a hunt bell and the other bells look like working bells. No
doubt in most compositions this would actually become the case. You can
certainly massage the classification system to treat B8-12 as a Surprise
method, taking the treble to be the principal hunt, because it has a
"recognised" path. This is a happy outcome.
However, what if we do the same to a principle? For instance, take MUG
Minor - as we did with Bristol, we can apply a different leadhead (here
"x") to get a single-lead method. But now the same classification rules
that would have "worked" for B8-12, in that they preserve the obvious
classification, do the opposite: a principle has become a hunter. (It
would either be a Little Plain or a Little Treble Dodging method,
depending on your views on the relative priorities of those paths).
If you were very familiar with MUG Minor and used to ringing it, the
single-lead version would look like the same kind of method, i.e. a
principle, and you'd probably have just as strong feelings about it as a
Surprise ringer does looking at single-lead Bristol.
MBD
More information about the ringing-theory
mailing list