[r-t] Old methods
matthew__100 at hotmail.com
Wed Jul 16 23:37:50 UTC 2008
"I won't give a full reply to this, but your arguments are weak, complete rubbish, inconsistent and intellectually bankrupt.
Words fail me. I'll just say that the "Decisions", if there are any, should provide a framework of describing what can be rung, and that only."
I am relatively new to this debate, which i gather has been going on for some time, so is there anywhere i could catch up on what exactly PJE's problems with the CC decisions are? Perhaps something to back up the statement about arguments being "complete rubbish" and "intellectually bankrupt". And more interestingly, his suggested changes/replacements for the existing decisions?
>From where i stand and what i know (which is admittedly rather limited) I don't believe that any decisions could ever really "stifle innovation" as most people who are likely to push innovation are usually quite happy to ignor the rules, and if the results of that innovation are good/interesting enough, then they will be rung. I think you may also do well to remember that the vast majority of ringers simply don't care about pushing boundaries, i know that that is no reason not to push them, but for most people the current CC Decisions allow enough more than enough to last a lifetime.
"I really don't like to concept of a "single" in Grandsire being described as a call acting over two changes. I think a call by definition can only act on a single row.
Of course, I wouldn't take the Woolley approach and try to "ban" conventional Grandsire, but I think compositions with "3.123" singles could be more consistently described (ie spliced)."
Are you seriously suggesting that all peals of Grandsire with singles (ie. all doubles, practically all triples and a lot at higher stages) be described as spliced? And is this the start of a campaign against doubles variations?
Date: Wed, 16 Jul 2008 12:16:41 +0100From: Earisp at rsc.orgTo: ringing-theory at bellringers.netSubject: RE: [r-t] Old methods
"It seems there is some misunderstanding of the current CC Decisions. Since 2002, the Council has NOT *recognised* any peal whatsoever. Since then, there are two types of peal-length performance. Those which comply with the Decisions and those which do not. Those that do are 'included in the analysis' - which to most intents and purposes means inclusion in the table, published this year at CC supplement page 478. Those which don't are listed separately with details of their non-compliance...In conclusion, if the exercise at large 'likes' a method, it is rung; if it is not-liked, it becomes obsolete (very quickly, in some cases)"
I won't give a full reply to this, but your arguments are weak, complete rubbish, inconsistent and intellectually bankrupt. What you're doing is imposing some very subject personal preferences on what may be called a method, in an attempt to act as a guardian of method purity. You claim that this has no consequences for ringers, but that is also wrong.
My recent question about the elegant doubles method is a good case in point - there was no way to find any information about it in the oficial methods collection, because the self-appointed guardian of this doesn't regard this method as acceptable.
The consequence of the current decisions is to stifle innovation. I read your assertion that "It must be remembered that the original Decisions were based on what was seen to be acceptable to most ringers at the time. If 8 blows at lead weregenerally acceptable say 100 years ago, the Decisions would allow them now" with open-mouthed incredulity - it makes my point far better than I could hope to. Do you not see anything even a bit dodgy about what you wrote? In those two sentences you perfectly encapsulate everything that is wrong with the Central Council and why in its current set it is doomed to failure.
Words fail me. I'll just say that the "Decisions", if there are any, should provide a framework of describing what can be rung, and that only.
Invite your Facebook friends to chat on Messenger
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the ringing-theory