[r-t] Method ringing vs. change ringing

[Richard Smith]

Alexander Holroyd wrote:

> There is a fundamental issue that is hardly being discussed.
>
> I think by far the biggest problem with the current decisions (perhaps even 
> the root of all the problems) is the requirement formerly encapsulated in a 
> decision that said something like:
>
> (*) A peal must be rung in a recognized method or methods.
>
> and which has now been replaced by:
>
> 11. The methods used in all peals shall conform to the Definitions and 
> Requirements given in Part A of the Decisions on Methods.
>
> 13. The non-method blocks used in all peals shall conform to the Definitions 
> and Requirements given in Part A of the Decision on Non-method Blocks.
>
> 14. The calls used in all peals shall conform to the Definitions and 
> Requirements given in Part A of the Decision on Calls.
>
>
> Why not simply do away with this idea, and start again without this 
> cumbersome burden to clear thinking?

That's certainly what I'm aiming to do in the definitions 
I'm working on.  "A peal is a true peal-length performance 
rung to a high standard."

> What I invisage ending up with could be divided into 3 sections, something 
> like the following:
>
> 1. PEALS
>
> Very simple definition involving the notions of changes, length, truth, WITH 
> NO MENTION OF METHODS OR CALLS.

I absolutely agree.

> Really the only thing that seems at all tricky here is the 
> definition of truth in cases such as variable stage (and 
> that particular byway doesn't seem like a priority area to 
> get precisely correct).

I think I have made good progress defining truth for 
variable stage performances.  You probably won't see a draft 
today as I have a busy day of actual paid work, but 
hopefully Saturday or Sunday ...


> This section could include a disclaimer along the lines of:
> "The requirements of this section relate solely to the changes rung, 
> regardless of the manner in which they are descibed".

Good wording.


> 2. METHODS
>
> Disclaimers such as:
> "Methods and calls provide a means of describing certain change ringing 
> performances, and have no bearing on whether such a performance is considered 
> to be a peal.  (The latter issue is covered by section 1)."
> and
> "It is recognized that the same performance may admit multiple descriptions. 
> It is the responsibility and prerogative of a band to choose an appropriate 
> description."

Again, I agree.

The only minor deviation I'd make from this division is that 
there can usefully be a section 0. BASIC DEFINITIONS, 
covering 'row', 'change' and 'block': things that are going 
to be common to both 1. PEALS and 2. METHODS.

> 3. NAMING OF METHODS
>
> Stuff about when a band can officially name a method (how 
> much do you have to ring, etc?)

Personally I'm rather less interested in this bit.  It's an 
administrative issue rather than a technical one.  But, yes, 
it's an important component to the decisions.

RAS