[r-t] Doubles 240s

[John Harrison]

> I do share his dislike of the so-called "null change". 

Are debating personal likes or the scope of possibilities that the
descriptive framework should be able to handle.

> I believe change-ringing should involve changing bells!

Yes it should.  The reason that we moved on from plain changes to cross
peals must have been that ringers wanted to do more changing than not
changing.  But we didn't take it to extremes and insist that everyone had
to maximise the amount of changing all the time.  For example we didn't
outlaw double changes (or even single changes) in triples.  

If you rang Don's illustrative pair of back to back 120s there would be
just one pivotal null change between the two halves, compared with a couple
of dozen at the start and end of the performance.  Would a true change
ringer decline to participate in the non-changing?  Of course not because
the opening rounds help the performers to establish a good striking rhythm
and a few closing rounds provide a sense of closure for the listener.  Both
contribute to the quality of the performance.  Why then should a single
null change not be used to create desired musical effects, especially since
to the performers it will feel much like the many other places made while
ringing the method.

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