[r-t] Cover bells

[Graham John]

Don wrote:

> I think this is unfortunate. Quarter peal ringers really do ring things
> with multiple covers today

To be clear, we are trying to do three things, and sometimes these are
getting mixed up.

1) Define what change ringing is
2) Provide a classification system which describes anything defined in 1,
and allows unique names to be applied.
3) Modify the CC decisions to allow peals provided that they are technically
change ringing as defined in 1, but also to retain some addition conditions
that are broadly accepted as required to uphold a reasonable standard for
peal ringing. Philip has retained many of these (peals should be rung
without interval, for example).

In defining change ringing, we need to crystallise the essence of change
ringing, and I think Don's test is a good yardstick of this one. It can also
be all-embracing, if we define sub-classifications of change ringing to
suits our purpose.

For example, something like this:

Change-Ringing is the art of ringing a set of tuned bells in a series of
rows (permutations).  A change is the progression from one row to the next.
There a number of ways of producing changes.

1) Call Changes, where...
2) Plain Changes, where...
3) Methods, where...
4) Rule-Based Constructions, where...

Now, even with this broad definition, we have excluded cylindrical because
it is not made up of permutations. Every time we define something, we will
exclude things. This is not banning them, it just means they need to be
called something else.

My definition of cover bells, and restriction to one, was as a replacement
for a CC decision on peals, and consequently a definition of what is, or is
not a peal. Personally, I feel that we have to limit the term peal (in the
CC context) to exclude call changes, plain changes and multiple covers, as
you don't have to be a change ringer to ring a subsequent cover bell, so it
is no different from ringing a peal of rounds. If the council wants to
defined separate categories for "Call-Change Peals", "Rounds Peals, or
"Cylindrical Peals", that is fine, but lets try and keep the definitions
simple and pure as possible.

It is worth noting that the Wikipedia description of change ringing points
out that when ringers talk about change ringing they commonly mean method
ringing. If it weren't for Dixon's, I think that this would have been a
useful term embracing our context. Although, if we define rule-based
constructions as methods, this would still work. 

Graham