[r-t] Definition of a call

[Phillip Barnes]

While I would not disagree with the point about qualifications of individual CC members, the usual effect of this is for them to vote slavishly for the status quo and I for one found it a pleasant surprise that despite the usual expressions of wild concern (the basis of ringing will be destroyed, this will tear apart the space-time continuum etc)  from the more conservative end of the members they voted for change. 

However, even when they vote against one's position, it very dangerous territory to start defining what gives people the right to an opinion or vote on a particular topic. Wars of Independence have been fought for less :-)

The change is permissive, and had the desired effect. It may not have been absolutely the most elegant way of allowing that desired effect but it was good enough and I am sure that it can and will be tweaked. 

The key issue is that it seeks to find a way to accurately describe what the band were ringing - in the sense of what was in their mind and how they went about ringing it, rather than a mathematical definition of what was rung. There are various "titles" for this variation of ringing. When we did this in Birmingham about 20 years ago it acquired the title "New Start". We also played about with it with the OUS in the 1980's and I remember calling it "Kingham style" because we first did it after meeting short for a peal there. All the conductor does is say "Go again" but in the middle of the course, rather than at the lead end. We rang a quarter of Bristol Maximus on the plan around 1992 - and certainly didn't do so by starting with Original Maximus and having a lot of different calls.

It can be fun, it's challenging ring, challenging to compose (although it raises the possibility of peals in a single method without bobs or singles (my disappointment is that the Methods Committee defined it as a "call" when it's really just starting again) and may even allow composers to cram more and exciting music than is conventionally possible into peals of recognisable methods that mortals can ring.

There's more to change ringing than rules and maths! Try it and enjoy.

Phil


On 8 Jun 2011, at 14:54, edward martin wrote:

> On 8 June 2011 09:40, Paul Bibilo <peb at delcam.com> wrote:
> On 08/06/2011 01:53, Matthew Frye wrote:
> > I still think the original peal would have been much better described
> > as Original Triples,
> Think what you like, but those who rang it thought they were ringing
> Grandsire.  At least I did, and observed whichever bell happened to be
> the treble so that I would know when to dodge.
> 
> > and I would presume that was the basis on which it was composed.
> I very much doubt that knowing the composer.
> --
> Paul
> 
> 
> So do I, but I think that this amendment was ill-considered & leaves a lot to be desired. It raises several questions as far as I am concerned.
> 1: If it was formulated to accommodate the peal of Grandsire Triples (variable treble) rung by the St. Chad’s ringers then it does not seem to me to accommodate the method they rang. E.g. If we start off ringing Grandsire Triples in the usual way, with 1 = primary hunt (PH) then we expect immediately to make 3rds and ring a block of 14 changes until PH leads again. This implies the expectance of a block of 14 changes which ends with either a call or a plain lead. However, if in the meantime a change in the PH is called then this should mean that we immediately enter a new block of 14 changes from that row irrespective of where the original PH happens to be. This has absolutely nothing to do with shortening or lengthening a lead of the original PH.
> 
> 2: I agree with Graham in that “a call is a means of passing from one course of a method to another” would be more practical if changed to read “lead” or “row”. As I’ve pointed out numerous times, to no avail whatsoever, a call in Grandsire Doubles under this definition implies that there are four courses equal in structure to the plain course which simply is not the case The 120 cannot be set out in 4 mutually exclusive plain courses of Grandsire Doubles; therefore in Grandsire Doubles a call cannot be said to move us from the plain course to another!!!
> 
> 3: I think that it is backward moving to allow a call to alter the length of the recognised structure of a method. Keeping the treble as PH, John Holt did produce a 720 of Bob Minor in which using 4th place bobs the PH was called to dodge 5-6 up (adding 2 rows to the lead block); make 4ths, (subtracting 4 rows from the lead block, and to dodge 5-6 down (adding 2 rows to the lead block) thus allowing for all 720 changes of Bob Minor to be produced without the need for singles. As clever as this was, it never caught on in popularity and stands as a unique quirk of mathematics.
> 
> 4: That such an amendment in this wording was passed by majority vote leads me once more to question the qualifications of the individual C.C. member. Have they any idea of what is being proposed? If not then what gives them any reaasonable right to vote one way or the other?
>  
> Eddie Martin 
> _______________________________________________
> ringing-theory mailing list
> ringing-theory at bellringers.net
> http://bellringers.net/mailman/listinfo/ringing-theory_bellringers.net

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://bellringers.net/pipermail/ringing-theory/attachments/20110609/6d9c6fc8/attachment-0004.html>