This article is within the scope of WikiProject Percussion, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of percussion on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PercussionWikipedia:WikiProject PercussionTemplate:WikiProject PercussionPercussion articles
What is wrong with quoting from the CCCBR? They are the accepted authority for the exercise. Would changing to "this system gives method names that to many sound evocative, musical and quaint" be better? I would suggest however that "something ... complete" is a fair summary. Any ringer could be proud, and most certainly are. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 08:43, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Other methods on 3 bells? I may be wrong but I thought that there were only 2 valid methods for 3 bells (Plain Hunt and Reverse Plaint Hunt). It's famous for that. --Andrew Hyde10:14, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is easy to demonstrate: there are only 6 rows and each row has only two "neighbors" (either the first two or second two bells swap positions); so they we can diagram these six rows as forming a loop; and there are only two ways to navigate a loop — clockwise or counter- (anti- for the Brits). Doops | talk20:07, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Of course, people will refer to non-valid methods as methods - if you've haven't rung the frontwork of Stedman on 3 or the front half of Bristol on 4, you haven't lived ;-) --62.58.152.5212:59, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I see that Kent Treble Bob Major, Grandsire Caters, Erin Triples, Chartres Delight Royal, Percy's Tea Strainer Treble Place Major and Titanic Cinques are all in italics? Is this correct. I had previously thought they should be in quotes, but it has also been suggested they should be in plain text, as they are "... systems of producing the changes that make up the peals, not names of the peals themselves." Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 07:52, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Under Grandsire there is the statement “[change ringing "methods"] allow a large range of possible different changes to be rung; even to the extent of the full factorial sequence of changes.” (which btw probably better fits in a more general section). For six bells that would be 6! = 720 changes. But the peal board depicted here claims “5040 changes […] each called differently”. How is that possible? ◅ Sebastian Helm🗨11:26, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Could it be that the Ely Diocesan Association was just terribly bad at math? The statement about the time also doesn't add up: 2 hours + 49 minutes = 10140 seconds, not 7720. ◅ Sebastian Helm🗨11:43, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
