[r-t] FW: Change Proposal to CC Decisions
graham at changeringing.co.uk
Fri Jun 16 22:04:20 UTC 2006
Andrew Johnson wrote:
> I think these changes are a bad idea.
Great response Andrew. Many thanks. I am interested in getting as much
feedback as possible - even if I disagree with many of the points:-)
> The 5000 change rule is an artificial limit
Yes, but one that ringers recognise. 5040 is an artificial limit for
but Triples. And why can't you ring a 5016 of Minimus now?
> whereas peal lengths based on extents have a mathematical purity.
Isn't it just extents that have mathematical purity, not peal lengths.
> We can't change the definition of peals of major and above now to be at
> least 5040 changes, but the difference isn't great as both are still
Agreed, but I don't understand the logic behind wanting to increase it to
> You can start to explain a peal to a beginner or a non-ringer as
> being a performance where all the combinations on 7 bells are rung once,
> and once only. These rules would remove that logic.
As you have expressed it (i.e. using the word "originally"), then this as a
historical statement would still be valid. However as a definition of a peal
as understood today, it misleads the beginner.
> The partial extent rule would also allow peals of doubles, minor and
> to be 'fixed' if a call is omitted by simply ringing a whole plain course
> putting the call in the correct place. Extra bobs could be 'fixed' by
> another 2 calls. That is doesn't desirable.
But you can fix peals under the current decisions by embedding one extent
in another. You can also ring multi-extent blocks today which contain a full
course without a call.
> You could get a bobs-only peal of Grandsire Triples etc. by ringing one
> course twice and all the other courses once.
It would have to contain all 5040 possible rows plus the additional course,
so why is only requiring bobs a problem? I don't see that this in any way
undermines the original composing challenge of producing an extent of
> You could ring a 40328 of major by ringing 40320 Plain Bob and 2 singles
> of Bastow (or an extent + two changes of 'X'). There may be some logic
> however in allowing multiple extents of major.
If a band wants to do this, why shouldn't they. It is just using the
logic applied to most quarterpeals of Minor to peals of Major.
> The methods rule would mean that methods could be named for which
> there is not much hope of there being a single-method peal.
There are many examples today. They are rung in spliced.
> There's quite enough name grabbing for methods, and this could
> encourage the ringing of more 'worthless methods'.
I accept this, and the fact that the number of methods named each year
may substantially increase. Does it actually matter though if quarterpeal
ringers want to ring lots of worthless methods? Peal bands do it now.
> It would be interesting if the Methods Committee each year would declare
> some new methods rung as being 'worthless' and reflecting 'discredit on
> their composers' (or declare them all as worthy additions to the
Very unlikely though. Think of the accusations of elitism, and the MC
imposing its views on others. Moldy did this in the RW "X-Files"
and it was eventually culled by the editor.
> Should a band be able to name a doubles or minor method by ringing an
> extent of it where the performance wouldn't meet the peal ringing
Neither the existing rule, nor my suggested amendment to include
permits this. The decisions on Peals A-D apply.
> I'd prefer rule B.1 to say that peals must have at least 3 people ringing
> settle any dispute about the peal. Perhaps the reason for the rule is that
> of minimus weren't originally allowed, and hand bell ringers should be
> find more bells, but people want to ring peals at 4-bell towers.
Feel free to suggest your own amendments to the decisions!
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the ringing-theory