[r-t] Call(ed) changes

James White jw_home at ntlworld.com
Sat Mar 21 14:47:19 UTC 2015

>> No doubt, but you're missing the point.  Those were pre-arranged
changes, not call changes.

Well I must admit that if nothing is said then one could (and I think most would) argue that what was rung cannot be call(ed) changes as the calls are missing but it's just the identity change scenario in a different context.

The absence of someone making the calls doesn't really stop the ringing being "call changes" in substance.

If I say that I participated in silent call changes then you have a very good idea of what I have rung, even if not the actual changes.  If I say I rang "pre-arranged changes" there is far greater ambiguity.  Most of my ringing comprises pre-arranged changes.

Also, all (non-silent) ringing is "called changes" it's just that we have previously determined that some "calls" have a greater effect.

There is a series of steps from the traditional call changes through to method ringing.  We start with simple changes (a single pair of bells cross) then move to multiple changes (such as calling "rounds" from 13254768), and then to more frequent changes, finally reaching changes every stroke.  Now, someone could, for Plain Bob Major for example, call out "cross", "18", "cross", etc. for each change but we have set up a shorthand whereby we say "Go Plain Bob Major" instead.

So (most) change ringing is called changes, whereas some is silent changes.  It's all a question of definition.....which is really at the heart of all the recent discussions.  If we are to describe what has been rung then we need to agree on some definitions.

Call changes are where simple changes are called out; in the absence of a call the identity change is rung.

Call usually take effect at handstroke, etc......


More information about the ringing-theory mailing list