[r-t] RE: ringing-theory Digest, Vol 11, Issue 7

[Samuel M. Austin]

>
> > One more thing
> >
> > Don Morrison wrote a couple of weeks ago in the RW an article on quarter
> > peal ringers.
> > The jist of it was that quarter peal ringers should be allowed to name a
> > method at any stage and not just minor and below. I'm surprised that 
>no-one
> > has passed any comment on it. What do you all think?
>
>I agreed with almost everything he said.  There are far more
>quarter peal ringers out there that peal ringers, and it
>would be nice if the Central Council could better reflect
>this.
>
>Equally, as I think Don said, many quarter peal ringers
>would probably not welcome as intrusive a set of decisions
>as are currently inflicted on peal ringers.

I think that the decisions (or restrictions) should be placed on quarter 
peals when the band name a new method only

>
> > My opinions are:
> >
> > 1. That a quarter peal is a good benchmark to be able to name a method 
>but I
> > think that any band ringing a just a course of a method should also be 
>able
> > to name it.
>
>I'm happy with quarters being used to name methods -- on six
>bells this is usually allowed at the moment.  (I say usually
>because some treble dodging methods are sufficiently false
>that 720s are not possible, though 1440s are.  Ringing a
>1440 of such a method is not enough to name it.  This is
>just plain silly.)
>
> > 2. Spliced - In a touch of spliced, at least a course of the new method 
>has
> > to be rung within the touch before naming it or else a quarter peal
> > involving the new method to name it.
>
>Would this also apply to peals of spliced?  I'm happy for it
>to, so long as there's no requirement to only ring named
>methods in peals.  (Personally, I'm in favour of severing
>the link between peals and methods, and that would certainly
>allow unnamed methods in peals.)
>
>When you say "a course of the new method has to be rung",
>what exactly do you mean?  Take a methods from some standard
>peal of 23 spliced.  In most cases, the seven leads of the
>method do not together form a course (the opening lead for a
>peal with regular part ends is a notable exception).  Is
>this enough to name the method?  Take a method like
>Stonebow.  This must have been rung in a number of peals
>(it's from one of David Hull's 23 spliced compositions), but
>I doubt anyone has ever rung a whole course of it.

Sorry I didn't think that comment through. Basically repeat what I said 
before, that the decisions should be applied to quarter peals but only when 
a new method is named.

>
>Perhaps if you required the composition to be all-the-work
>(for working bells) in that method, this would be nearer
>what you want?  But even this isn't ideal.  For example, I
>expect that there are some commonly-rung peal compositions
>of Grandsire Caters that are not all the work.  If one of
>these were rung to a new plain caters method, should this be
>enough to ring it?  I certainly think so.
>
>Maybe the best compromise is to simply say ringers *may*
>name a method if they ring enough of it to be representative
>of the whole method, and leave the exact meaning of this
>undefined.
>
> > When the ringers of the 17th Century were practicing Grandsire and Plain
> > Bob, they didn't ring a peal of it before naming them did they?
>
>There's an important difference, however.  In the 17th
>century (less by the 18th), simply producing a true touch
>was a poorly-understood challenge.  So, at that time, I
>imagine many pieces of ringing were given names by their
>composers.  (I doubt there's any hard and fast evidence to
>support -- or otherwise -- this.  But if you spend days or
>weeks working on a piece of ringing, you're more likely to
>assign a name to it than if you spend 30 second trying to
>locate your copy of BYROC.)  These days, anyone can knock
>together an extent of an unrung treble dodging minor method:
>the challenge is to find a band with the inclination to ring
>a peal/quarter of it.  So these days, it seems right that
>the band who ring a relatively long length (e.g. a peal or a
>quarter) of a method get to name it.
>
> > Also with triples and below, one has to ring an extent to name the 
>method
> > but with major and above, a peal is considered a suitable benchmark for
> > ringers. More ringers ring quarter peals than peals (Morrison, D ) which 
>is
> > another reason why ringers who don't ring peals should have the right to
> > name methods of triples and above.
> >
> > I'm not trying to knock the work of the methods committee here, in fact 
>I
> > appreciate and use frequently the provisional method names page so at 
>least
> > they aren't disregarding non peal ringers completely.
>
>One area where I think there is a significant difference
>between what the Methods Committee do and what the decisions
>say is doubles variations.  (E)A.3(c) states "each variation
>... may be given its own name".  Irrespective of whether you
>agree with this, this is what the decisions say, and that
>presumably means it is the Methods Committee's job to keep
>track of these names.  It strikes me that this needs to be
>made consistent:  if doubles variations are to given
>official names, then it should be the job of one of the CC
>committees to keep track of them; and if not, the decisions
>need to be changed to reflect this.
>
>RAS
>
>
>
>------------------------------


Aye

Sam