[r-t] History

Graham John graham at changeringing.co.uk
Sat Jun 7 16:45:47 UTC 2014

I agree with the majority of the points that Tim made last night.
Definitions and method taxonomy are useful for all ringers, not just peal
ringers, so we need to avoid thinking in those terms.

>  But I'm still on the fence on whether, in a true multi-extent round
block, it's ok to have the same row consecutively.  Is it change ringing if
there's no change?

For this I propose the following:

A null change does not fall under the existing definition of a change (a
change is the progress from one row to the next, effected by the interchange
of bells in adjacent positions in the row), it is a duplication of a row and
not a change. I wouldn't alter the definition of a change, but I would
introduce a definition for a null change. As a null change is then not a
change, you just do not count it as a change. Say you rang a 720 of
Cambridge Minor in full blows, half muffled. Is this change ringing? Yes, I
think you would have to say it is (and most would probably find it more
challenging). Although you would ring 1440 rows (true by the earlier
definition) you would only ring 720 changes. Based upon a definition of
quarter-peal being 1250 changes, it would not be a quarter peal because we
count changes not rows. Similarly if a multi-extent block of 2160 rows
contained one null change, it has 2159 changes. I think that would mean that
peals rung previously with null changes would still be peal length, but
would have slightly fewer changes.

The aim should always be to phrase simple definitions that are logically
consistent, embrace historical precedent, yet also accommodate what others
might want to ring, without putting our own value judgements on whether they
are worth doing.


More information about the ringing-theory mailing list