[r-t] Methods and peals

[Barriehen at aol.com]

In a message dated 23/01/2006 20:08:53 GMT Standard Time,  mark at snowtiger.net 
writes:

In my  view, the most important thing that the CC/MC does, and the thing that
has  the biggest impact on ringers everywhere, is to maintain the  method
libraries. OK, so you normally have to ring a peal to name a new  method,
except for Minor and below, but very few people ring methods that  haven't
been so named, and, almost without exception, everyone abides by  the names
established in this manner.



You live in adifferent world.   There is probably no ringer  living within 10 
miles of me who has ever looked at the method  collection.   It has 
importance only to a tiny percentage of ringers.I  could send up my next 10 peals and 
give them new names and they woul;d be  published on the word of the conductor 
whatever we rang.... the CCCBR dont even  require you to tell them what a new 
method is and about 10 years ago they let  the Julian Morgan system for 
looking at compositions rung to new methods  lapse.   Ask Roger Bailey what the 
difference is between Sowerby and  Woodbine .  The whole thing is very amateurish 
and uncontrolled..... but  perhaps the way you want it.
Barrie
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://bellringers.net/pipermail/ringing-theory/attachments/20060123/8a9dd978/attachment-0004.html>