[r-t] Null change/Whole pull

[Matthew Frye]

On 1 Jan 2015, at 16:59, Tim Barnes <tjbarnes23 at gmail.com> wrote:

> Allowing the null change clearly would allow 'Whole-Pull Cambridge' to be named as a method (when using the results of our other polls to date).  But when we get on to debating compositions, there may be a case for allowing whole pull ringing to be allowed as a form of composition, i.e. a different way of using the underlying method without having to create a new method.  Not dissimilar to the question of whether horizontal splicing of London Minor and Cambridge Minor to produce true maximus rows is a valid form of composition.  I would think we would still want truth to be assessed at the row level (not pairs of rows), so whole-pull ringing would mostly apply to compositions such as a 1440 of minor that is an extent rung in whole pulls.

I agree that whole-pull ringing could reasonably be considered under the heading of "composition", but I disagree with your later statement to only assess truth at the level of rows. That would essentially allow whole pull ringing on up to 6 bells, but disallow it on 7 or more. I agree that the null change itself should probably work like that, but I think whole pull ringing is not fundamentally different on different numbers of bells, and so should be treated accordingly.

You would certainly be able to name "Whole Pull Cambridge Surprise Minor" as a method, and ring it to a 1440, but I would far prefer to ring 720 [rows or changes] of the method "Cambridge Surprise Minor" in whole pulls, which seems a better and more natural description.

And what, exactly, is so abhorrent about a quarter of Triples in whole pulls? Unlike much of the stuff we are discussing abstractly, that would seem to be something a few bands might actually be keen to ring (probably half muffled), which should certainly be a sufficient (although not necessary) condition for being allowed!

MF
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://bellringers.net/pipermail/ringing-theory/attachments/20150101/0cd438d1/attachment-0004.html>