[r-t] Restriction #4

Ted Steele teds.bells at tesco.net
Mon Dec 1 11:24:32 UTC 2014

On 01/12/2014 09:42, Graham John wrote:

> My preference would be to define a cover bell ... as a bell that remains in
> the same place for the whole lead including the lead end change ... and then
> say that a cover bell is not part of the method,

But to define a cover bell with reference to a method implies that it is 
part of the method.

Does a cover bell need defining at all in a discussion about methods? If 
so, the simplest way of looking at it might be that it is a bell rung 
after each change but the total absence of which has no effect whatever 
upon the method under discussion.

If you then wish to look at variable cover then the implication is that 
there is no cover bell in the traditional sense but that the method 
itself is rung on a non-fixed group of bells. This of course challenges 
the traditional basis of change ringing, because it allows the 
possibility of having some bell/s silent and only called into the 
changes as others drop out. Variable Cover Plus! Could be interesting.

Multiple places in a method are so fundamentally a matter of taste that 
it seems pretty pointless really to agonise over them. They probably 
have a useful role in special link methods (or blocks) but beyond that 
seem unlikely to become a popular feature of commonly rung methods.


More information about the ringing-theory mailing list