[r-t] Cover bells
richard at ex-parrot.com
Thu Aug 7 00:55:16 UTC 2008
Graham John wrote:
> 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...
I very much like this idea. And I favour including call
changes here even if the decisions choose not to allow peals
of call changes.
> 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 you exclude call changes and plain changes, where do you
draw the line? Is a peal allowed to contain a row
immediately after the same row -- e.g. on 6 bells, is the
place notation 123456 allowed? (We included 24 such calls
in the 1440 at the end of our Dec '03 illegal peal.)
With a small number of these, you are unquestionably still
in the realm of change ringing. But if you have too many,
it becomes whole-pull ringing, or call change ringing, or
You also mention plain changes. Plain changes on four are
certainly legal (Double Court or Double Canterbury).
Depending what exactly you mean by plain changes, and what
happens to the rule on multiple consecutive blows in one
place, they may be legal on higher numbers too.
Excluding call changes would be easy -- you simply exclude
the 'null' change (p.n. 123456 on 6). And doing so isn't
going to greatly curtail what can be rung. But excluding
plain changes seems much more error-prone.
As to disallowing peals with more than one cover or leading
bell, I can certainly sympathise with that point of view.
But that logic only applies to peals where the same bell is
secondary cover throughout. I can't see any problems with
peals of mixed minimus, doubles and minor, for example. Or
with a peal of minor and triples rung on eight bells with
the tenor behind throughout.
One problem that is introduced by cover bells is properly
understanding what a 'true' peal means. Philip's
definitions (as I understand them) mean that all peals of
covered doubles are false -- they are treated as 6-bell
peals, but 600 of the rows are never rung.
In the case of peals on more than one stage, the current
distinction between mixed stages and variable cover is
important because of its implications on truth. With mixed
stages, all that is required is that each extent or
multi-extent block is true on that number of bells. In
variable cover, blocks must be true including the covering
bell. Thus, a peal with 6 extents of minor and 6 of doubles
is true if for the doubles extents either the tenor is
behind for them all, or each bell is behind for one each,
but no other possibilities are allowed.
>From this discussion, it appears that the minimal definition
of a peal is probably "sufficient true changes". An
excellent start. But what does 'sufficient' mean? What
does 'true' mean? And what does 'changes' mean?
Once you start digging into these (especially the definition
of 'true'), it starts to become apparent how some of the
complexity of the existing decisions has arisen.
More information about the ringing-theory