[r-t] Survey #3: One-lead courses. Results.

Don Morrison dfm at ringing.org
Wed Oct 15 15:50:13 UTC 2014

On Wed, Oct 15, 2014 at 11:35 AM, Matthew Frye <matthew at frye.org.uk> wrote:
> Both points raise issues with calls. They're both valid issues to
> raise, but I'm not sure if/where calls fit into Tim's
> considerations. As always I think it's important to be clear about
> exactly what we're all talking about and if we should be considering
> calls at all at this stage. I personally think we probably need a
> more clear definition of a call* before we can really meaningfully
> discuss those points. In particular the point about rotations and
> where you put calls is pretty much moot unless you tie calls to
> division ends or half-leads.

Thanks for mentioning this. It brings to light another point that
really should be on Tim's list. *Can* we divorce methods from calls?
The CCCBR certainly tries to, but as Eddie Martin used to love to
point out, that can be viewed as a relatively recent innovation. If I
understood him correctly, he believed that Grandsire Doubles as a
method historically included its calls as part of itself.

Whenever I have rung it I think of Dixon's as a rule
based "method." But, if I understand correctly, the CCCBR
assures us it's just Plain Bob, with bits that I think of as
parts of the method being just unusual calls, made silently.

If we adopt that view, how come we think Single Court Minor is
a method? It's just Original with the usual bob. Why is it
somehow more method-y than Dixon's?

There's something here every bit as relevant as the existing
six points, I think.

Don Morrison <dfm at ringing.org>
"History always has a few tricks up its frayed sleeve. It's been
around a long time."                              -- Terry Pratchett

More information about the ringing-theory mailing list