[r-t] New Grandsire [was Old methods]

[Philip Earis]

Absolutely.  I have rung in perhaps ten peals in the past year that have
all had five types of call. All very elegant - indeed, the neatest way
to reach the desired solution. Why on earth do some people feel the need
to draw a line to prevent this? You just create artificial constraints,
and end up with (at best) people classifying the new methods they ring
in unnatural and inelegant ways.

But Robin Woolley also has problems understanding:
"Maybe it's me, but I can never get my head around those who *need*
their outre performances to be 'accepted' by someone else"

Again, I think you're being disingenuous. Why have arbitrary constraints
about what is good and what is not.

I'll leave it there, as I think this could get tedious.

Also Don:
"Is "variable hunt" just a typo for "variable cover", or do you really
think of the covering bell as a hunt bell?"

Both.




-----Original Message-----
From: Don Morrison [mailto:dfm at ringing.org] 
Sent: 18 July 2008 13:59
To: ringing-theory at bellringers.net
Subject: Re: [r-t] New Grandsire [was Old methods]

On Fri, Jul 18, 2008 at 8:30 AM, Simon Humphrey <sh at keystrata.co.uk>
wrote:
> But where do you draw the line with introducing additional types of
call?
> Nowadays having 3 types in a peal of Maximus is commonplace, but what
about
> 4, or 5, or 20?

That, I think, comes right to the crux of this recurring discussion.

- There are those that want someone to draw such a line that
  others are expected not to cross.

- And there are those that feel you need no line: if ringers choose to
  ring peals with 20 different kinds of call, let them; if someone
doesn't
  want to, he or she simply declines to ring in such peals.

I am, as must be obvious, in the latter camp.

While I never have had the opportunity, probably because you need a
whole band to ring and most folks feel otherwise, I think it would be
fun to ring in a peal with a great multiplicity of different kinds of
call. In much the same way that ringing spliced is good fun.




DISCLAIMER:

This communication (including any attachments) is intended for the use of the addressee only and may contain confidential, privileged or copyright material. It may not be relied upon or disclosed to any other person without the consent of the RSC. If you have received it in error, please contact us immediately. Any advice given by the RSC has been carefully formulated but is necessarily based on the information available, and the RSC cannot be held responsible for accuracy or completeness. In this respect, the RSC owes no duty of care and shall not be liable for any resulting damage or loss. The RSC acknowledges that a disclaimer cannot restrict liability at law for personal injury or death arising through a finding of negligence. The RSC does not warrant that its emails or attachments are Virus-free: Please rely on your own screening.