[r-t] Poll on consecutive blows in the same position
dfm at ringing.org
Sun Dec 28 23:05:53 UTC 2014
On Sun, Dec 28, 2014 at 4:50 PM, Mark Davies <mark at snowtiger.net> wrote:
> in change-ringing, all the bells at a given stage ought
> to be involved in changes.
So, that linkage device in those quarters doesn't count as change ringing?
> In a "method" where one bell does not move in the lead, it feels like that
> bell is not a change-ringing bell (much like a cover bell) and hence is not
> taking part in the method. I'm not sure I like that.
Then don't ring it.
This is not about taste. It's about describing what ringers do, or
might do in the future.
> As part of a composition where the bell *does* move; well that's
> fine, so let's use the block concept to separate out the
> non-change-ringing changes, and then combine the whole into a
> change-ringing peal.
Now I'm really confused. So if those quarters were instead of peal
length, they'd be peals, but only partially change ringing? And if it
were a 5,040, but there were twenty-two methods (and thus 4,928
changes of change ringing) and the rest of it instances of the linkage
block, we'd have a peal with only 4,928 changes of changing ringing in
it? This sounds frightfully muddled to me.
Don Morrison <dfm at ringing.org>
"There are so few notes but so many implications."
-- Leon Fleisher in _The New Yorker_, 19 April 2004
More information about the ringing-theory