[r-t] Method ringing vs. change ringing

[John Harrison]

Tim

The problem is indeed related to reporting.  The current system guarantees
that performances can be reported within the current descriptive framework
because it doesn't allow any that can't.

If we move to a more liberal approach we must accept that the possibility
of performances that can't be described within the current descriptive
framework when rung, and that (as now) the descriptive framework may
periodically need extending, and that in the period between an innovative
performance and an agreed extension to the descriptive framework an interim
description may be needed (in extremis the whole place notation but that
seems less likely).

If during the period of experimentation leading up to the innovative
performance it is possible to agree a sensible way to extend the
descriptive framework to encompass the new types of performance then the
temporary description could be avoided.  That may not be possible in all
cases but I would expect it to be much easier than under the current
regime.  

I think we agreed earlier that rather than having methods and non-methods
we should accept that 'method' is an all embracing term for systematically
generating changes, and that methods subject to various conventional
constraints would form a (popular) subclass of method.  Thus all
performances will contain methods, but some of them may be things that we
can't currently describe.

However, we still need some delinking to break the circularity where you
can only name things in performances that use methods that conform to the
current descriptive framework, so you can't ring an innovative performance
that demonstrates the merits of new types of methods (and have it
recognised).

-- 
John Harrison
Website http://jaharrison.me.uk