[r-t] Old methods

Matthew Frye matthew__100 at hotmail.com
Fri Jul 18 00:01:45 UTC 2008

While the decisions certainly don't help innovation, you can't blame them for what people usually ring."We are, on average, a very conservative lot.""Just because something is new doesn't mean it is particularly difficult, and we are denying ourselves a good deal of potential pleasure in not ringing a wider variety of things."Equally just because something is old doesn't mean it's worse than something new or that it's regularly rung. There are many good and interesting existing methods that are often neglected for "standard" methods, eg. Stedman is almost universally rung more often that Erin, despite the latter being (INHO) both easier and nicer. Erin perhaps wasn't the best choice as an example as it is fairly widely rung, but i am sure there are other better examples. I think that the conservatism of most *ringers* is more at fault than the conservatism of the decisions.Your points about the first peal of variable cover/differential hunters are good, and these peals probably should be (or should have been) "recognised", however those show that if things are rung, the decisions change to reflect them, but perhaps they don't change quickly enough for some people (does anyone have dates for the peal of variable cover and when the decisions changed to allow it?)Don't misunderstand me, i think that new methods/ideas can be very interesting, and should be rung and should be allowed by the CC decisions, but i think that you seem to be attributing a lot of blame to the conservatism of the decisions where i believe that the conservatism of ringers in general plays a far bigger role.  ----------------------------------------> Date: Wed, 16 Jul 2008 21:02:36 -0400> From: dfm at ringing.org> To: ringing-theory at bellringers.net> Subject: Re: [r-t] Old methods> > On Wed, Jul 16, 2008 at 7:37 PM, Matthew Frye <matthew__100 at hotmail.com> wrote:>> I don't believe that any decisions could ever really "stifle>> innovation"> > Well, the Decisions themselves don't, I suppose, in the same way that> if I stab someone it's not the knife that's at fault, it's I. The> problem is the way we, as ringers, tend to use the Decisions. But the> end result is the same, anyway.> > The majority of ringers appear to continue to view the Council as> telling them what is or is not legal to ring. No amount of careful> wording gets around that. "Not automatically included in the analysis"> ends up being completely equivalent to "something we're just not> going to ring" for most bands.> > We are, on average, a very conservative lot.> > One further point. Even if we were to believe that the Decisions don't> stifle innovation, the way in which they are promulgated certainly> punishes it:> > - The first peal of variable cover that was rung still does not appear>   in the Council's analyses. When the Decisions were amended to make>   variable cover "legal" the only peal of it that had been rung up>   until then was explicitly, and I believe spitefully, not granted the>   legitimacy that subsequent peals of it are accorded. So what the>   Council would have us believe is the first peal of the stuff, is>   presumably the second.> > - Long before differential hunter methods became "legal" I believe>   peals had been rung that contained them. At least one of spliced>   plain royal with some three lead course methods, and I seem to>   recall there were some others, as well. These peals were chucked>   out, and the bands that rang them were not entitled to name the>   methods. Now that they are legal there has been no effort to>   recognize the ground breaking work that went on, I think decades>   earlier, and let the names proposed by the earlier bands stand.> > - I'm am confident other examples of similar non-recognition of past>   performaces that meet current Decisions could be found.> > So the reward for doing something new is that you get slapped in the> face by the Council, but others get to do what you did with the> Council's blessing.> >> as most people who are likely to push innovation are usually quite happy to>> ignor the rules,> > I think you have cause and effect reversed here. The people who are> willing to push innovation currently are only those that are happy to> ignore the rules. Those who are afraid to ring things the Council> won't include in their analysis automatically (which most still phrase> as "accept") avoid anything innovative.> > And this is closely related to the punishment of innovation I referred> to above. It is completely dysfunctional that to get something made> acceptable you are required to first break the rules, without being> forgiven for it.> > And finally, it's not just that some folks willing to break rules> can't be found to try new things. It is the pejorative tone that> having had to break rules to get the rules changed, makes the new> things continue to seem wierd, exotic, and somehow not for the rest of> us. Just because something is new doesn't mean it is particularly> difficult, and we are denying ourselves a good deal of potential> pleasure in not ringing a wider variety of things.> > For example, given the historic popularity of Grandsire and Oxford Bob> Triples, I'm sure non-superstar bands could enjoy all sorts of> differential hunter types of methods, too. But because they were> banned for so long, even though now legal they are still viewed as> wierd and not quite right by the majority of ringers, and so not> explored.> > In the end, we suffer the consequences of our own conservatism.> > > -- > Don Morrison <dfm at ringing.org>> "For lack of congenial company, he lived in an unsociable isolation> which fashionable people called pose and illbreeding, the authorities> a recalcitrant spirit, his neighbours madness, his family selfishness> and pride."   -- Marcel Proust, _À la recherche du temps perdu_,>                  tr. C. K. Scott Moncrieff> _______________________________________________> ringing-theory mailing list> ringing-theory at bellringers.net> http://bellringers.net/mailman/listinfo/ringing-theory_bellringers.net
Find the best and worst places on the planet
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://bellringers.net/pipermail/ringing-theory/attachments/20080718/99ecda97/attachment-0004.html>

More information about the ringing-theory mailing list