[r-t] Definition of a call

Robert Lee rlee5040 at yahoo.com
Thu Jun 9 10:28:52 UTC 2011

On Thu, 9 Jun 2011 08:48:06, Philip Barnes wrote

>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.


On the subject of New Start, how about the following as the basis for a peal:

3136 Bristol Surprise Maximus

            1234567890ET    3.5 leads
            243658709TE1    7.5 leads

            x 6

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://bellringers.net/pipermail/ringing-theory/attachments/20110609/7e4493a6/attachment-0004.html>

More information about the ringing-theory mailing list