I was in England when HM QE II died. It was a rare opportunity to hear quite a lot of change ringing, notable not least because many of the bells were fully muffled in mourning of the monarch.
Bell ringing is English?? I grew up in England and assumed all churches everywhere did it. I guess I just never noticed its absence in the USA, despite living here for over 20 years.
Sayers, mentioned here in passing, wrote probably the only detective story explicitly called out (as an introduction to change ringing) in The New Grove Dictionary of Music and Musicians (a mighty 20 volume encyclopaedia).
So if you like old detective stories and this article tickled your interest, perhaps give "The Nine Tailors" a whirl.
> composers tend to base their methods in mathematical principles such as group theory
I know many composers were and are very in tune with the mathematics of music. But the “tend to” makes me wonder: were most of them in tune, or is it that pleasant sounding music will inevitably display mathematical patterns?
That sentence is specifically about composers of methods in change ringing, where the musical possibilities are tightly constrained by the rules and the physics of ringing large bells. Change ringing is based on permutations constructed by swapping adjacent pairs. (Except for the jump changes that the article is about.) For a “triples” peal on 7 bells the ringers are supposed to ring all 5040 possible permutations. It’s called “triples” because you can make up to 3 swaps at a time; one of the challenges (for example) is to construct a triples peal that only uses triple changes.
"I am taking such pains with these things, not so much out of concern that the pupil might, if they were not explained, thoughtlessly accept and mechanically apply them, as to establish explicitly that these principles are not derived from aesthetics but from practical considerations. If what is known as aesthetics does in fact contain much that is merely practical handling of the material, and if what is known as symmetry is perhaps often not much more than an organization of the material that reveals a sensible regard for its properties, yet I consider it worthwhile to set down these observations. For the conditions of practicality can change, if we take a different view of the material and if the purpose changes. But aesthetics alleges it has discovered eternal laws."
I love seeing a change ringing article on HN, especially with well labelled diagrams!
The move to a framework system where we can all ring what we like and just describe it within an agreed upon nomenclature is a great improvement rather than the legacy Decisions. Having strict rules always seemed quite dated to me - the ringing police after all do not show up if you ring a "banned" performance. But agreeing on names makes communication possible - a good role for a central body.
Jump changes are fun too, but I don't think I agree with the article that allowing them has really led to a revolution. The top performances on BellBoard are of commonly rung non-jump methods. In fact I don't think I've seen a jump method be featured at all. Philip himself doesn't seemed to have published a performance of "Jump" anything since 2013. For many I think it remains an interesting novelty.
The only way you can justify public bell ringing is by appeal to tradition. Church bells are very loud and are placed in tall bell towers to be heard over a wide area. Despite the disruption and annoyance they can cause, this is an important part of English culture and I support it.
Once you start changing the rules, you are no longer following the tradition. You're accepting that the tradition can be changed, and in that case, I'd prefer it changed to "silence" not "jumping".
14 comments
[ 7.8 ms ] story [ 37.4 ms ] threadSo if you like old detective stories and this article tickled your interest, perhaps give "The Nine Tailors" a whirl.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Nine_Tailors
I know many composers were and are very in tune with the mathematics of music. But the “tend to” makes me wonder: were most of them in tune, or is it that pleasant sounding music will inevitably display mathematical patterns?
-- Arnold Schoenberg, Theory of Harmony
The move to a framework system where we can all ring what we like and just describe it within an agreed upon nomenclature is a great improvement rather than the legacy Decisions. Having strict rules always seemed quite dated to me - the ringing police after all do not show up if you ring a "banned" performance. But agreeing on names makes communication possible - a good role for a central body.
Jump changes are fun too, but I don't think I agree with the article that allowing them has really led to a revolution. The top performances on BellBoard are of commonly rung non-jump methods. In fact I don't think I've seen a jump method be featured at all. Philip himself doesn't seemed to have published a performance of "Jump" anything since 2013. For many I think it remains an interesting novelty.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b006sgsh
Which normally segues into the Shipping Forecast
Once you start changing the rules, you are no longer following the tradition. You're accepting that the tradition can be changed, and in that case, I'd prefer it changed to "silence" not "jumping".