[r-t] Definition of a call

edward martin edward.w.martin at gmail.com
Thu Jun 9 15:14:18 UTC 2011

On 9 June 2011 14:46, Don Morrison <dfm at ringing.org> wrote:

> On Thu, Jun 9, 2011 at 4:49 AM, edward martin <edward.w.martin at gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > So you would allow for a method structure to be cut up into any number
> > of slices, sewn back together in any way you like - some bits forward PN
> > with others reverse PN - and still insist that you are ringing the
> orginal
> > method?
> I appear to be in the minority in this belief, or at least out of
> sync with those that make the "rules," but:
> I would allow a band to ring anything they please.
 Resultig in total anarchy.
Change ringing did not begin and has not continued with folks ringing what
they pleased without respect to the consideration of fellow ringers
There are the sevweral 'musical changes' which as pleasant as they may be,
amongst change ringers they are called up once & once  only We did not base
our art on call changes and the repetition of any particular rows or on
pleasant tunes played on a carrillon  Over the last 400 years or so we have
strived for a particular excellence in ringing changes without repetition
and long may this desire continue

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://bellringers.net/pipermail/ringing-theory/attachments/20110609/a477758d/attachment-0004.html>

More information about the ringing-theory mailing list