[r-t] Doubles 240s
martin at boojum.org.uk
Fri Mar 20 10:48:06 UTC 2015
On 20 March 2015 at 11:10, James White <jw_home at ntlworld.com> wrote:
> Richard Johnston wrote:
>>> I agree with JEC that call changes don't involve the identity change,
>>> and nor would full-pull method ringing (which I would support).
> What? Am I missing something here? When we repeat a row, we have rung the
> identity change.
> Every other change in full-pull method ringing is the identity change.
I'm (perhaps surprisingly) with JEC on this one. I think call changes
consists of ringing the same row lots of times (no changes involved),
followed by a change, followed by ringing a new row lots of times, and
so on. I reckon that, if you compare two performances of call changes
which differ only in the number of times one of the rows was rung,
then most people would say you're rung the same sequence of changes.
Similarly I don't think whole-pull Stedman is a different method from
normal Stedman. It's the same method, with the same changes, but
performed in a different way (i.e. with each row rung twice).
A null change in a method, like a 123456 call in Minor, is a different
beast, and I would count it as a change. It's really a feature of the
method or composition and not a feature of the way the method is
OK, back to lurking.
More information about the ringing-theory