[r-t] A Ringing Puzzle

[Matthew Sorell]

On a more serious note, and as one of those who will be at the meeting, I'm interested in hearing the range of views and I'm willing to be educated.

A few options to dissect. I'm not going to push these but I'm genuinely interested in how these might work:

1. instead of Non-Method Blocks could we have "Pseudo Methods" or "Quasi Methods", with the same word in the descriptor (eg Morrison Pseudo Surprise) to encompass anything that isn't a method by current taxonomy (including false in the Plain Course) but is used in a method-like way.

2. could D(A)11 be modified to define an "Orthodox" or "Conventional" peal. In that case the Peal Records committee would have four classifications:
1. Not a peal (eg less than  5000 rows)
2. Non-compliant peal (eg rung on a simulator, jump changes?)
3. A peal (conventional fully compliant peal)
4. An unorthodox peal (fully compliant, incorporating composition elements which fall outside Section E)

Type 4 might then trigger a review of the method taxonomy, but it would be a fully compliant peal. I previously proposed in RW removing D(A)11 altogether which requires some housekeeping changes too. Other than the notion that record keepers need a means of recording such a peal, I haven't seen a counter-argument, and I disagree with this argument anyway - we already have a range of notations for different compositions (Stedman has at least 3 for example). All that really matters is that the composition can be used by the conductor and the band, and any subsequent archiving of the composition needs to demonstrate truth. Or have I missed something?

A critical discussion would be appreciated.

Regards
Matthew Sorell

Sent from my i3ad

> On 23 May 2014, at 12:00 pm, Philip Earis wrote:
> 
> Perhaps we can find a CC member to propose an amendment to call these dangerous assemblies of non-complaint changes "anti-method blocks" or maybe "satanic blocks" to liven up the old stiffs' debate a bit?