[r-t] A date to pencil into your calendar
johnstonrh at amen.org.uk
Sun Sep 6 13:08:13 UTC 2015
> On Sep 3, 2015 2:55 AM, "Richard Johnston" <johnstonrh at amen.org.uk
> <mailto:johnstonrh at amen.org.uk> > wrote:
> > This seems to me to be gratuitously complicated, and wrong in principle
> ... The method isn't any different from
> > normal. It is just rung in whole-pulls rather than half-pulls ... Any
> one ringing bob doubles in whole pulls will still think they are ringing
> Bob Doubles, just in whole pulls rather than whole pulls ... The sensible
> description is Plain Bob Doubles rung in whole pulls.
> There are a few points to make on this:
> First, it seems reasonable to report (say) a QP rung in whole pulls as
> (say) 1440 PB Minor with the inclusion of a footnote saying it used a
> single-extent composition that was rung in whole pulls. It would be clear
> what was rung.
> A benefit of instead naming a new ?place? minor method is that if someone
> later wants to do an analysis of how popular whole pull ringing is
> becoming, they can do a search for performances that use methods with an
> identity change every other row. I.e. they can leverage existing ringing
> infrastructure. It would be harder to do this analysis if information had
> to be gleaned from footnotes.
> Also, reporting performances in ways that are different from how ringers
> think about what they're ringing is not uncommon. E.g. TD Minor rung as
> overworks and underworks but reported as distinct methods, and Doubles
> rung as base methods plus a variety of calls but reported as variations.
> I agree it?s generally preferable for performances to be described /
> reported in ways that correspond to how they?re rung, but I don?t see that
> this will be practical in all cases.
> Finally, it would be possible to introduce a new class of ringing for
> performances rung in whole pulls. At one level this could be as simple as
> adding a check box to Bell Board to identify such performances, and the
> check box could then be used for the analysis described above. We had a
> similar discussion in the sub-group on whether a new class of composition
> should be introduced for when two or more methods (or more than one
> instance of a single method) are rung in a single row (e.g. Cambridge
> Minor over London Minor rung on 12-bells). While still an open question
> in the sub-group, arguments have been made that it?s better to describe
> such a composition as a single Maximus method, as this similarly leverages
> existing ringing infrastructure, avoiding the need for re-programming of
> composition libraries, proving programs and music analyzers to handle this
> new composition class. (Hence clause K.10.) There?s a trade-off between
> adding new ringing classes so that description matches
> how something is rung, vs. the additional complexity that this brings.
> For now it seems better to leverage existing ringing infrastructure in
> advocating for updated Decisions. New classes can always be added down
> the road if new types of ringing become popular.
I doubt we are going to come to a common mind on this question.
I don't find any of this persuasive, though I grant it depends on
your conceptual understanding of what is meant by a ringing method.
To my mind, and given my academic background I am probably thinking
of a method in terms of its underlying mathematics, a method is still
conceptually the same method irrespective of the exact manner of its
performance, half-pull or whole pull. I suspect many ordinary
ringers would take a similar view. Ringing in whole pulls then does
not imply a new method
Your arguments therefore seem to me conditioned by the desire to make
all methods fit into a *half-pull* scheme (whether that really makes
sense in terms of what was rung or not).
To make clear to anyone that it is the whole pull version, an extent
of the whole pull version of P B Minor could be titled:
720 Plain Bob Wholepull Minor.
No one would have any trouble discriminating that from the half-pull
version, when searching for wholepull performances.
Moreover in this understanding it still has only 720 *changes* to an
extent, even though the performance contains 1440 rows. To my mind
it isn't appropriate to use the "null" change in such circumstances.
Making it a 1400 arises from forcing the performance to conform to a
half-pull format. A peal would need to be 10000+ rows. Compare the
call change extent on 7 bells which has previously been performed -
see under heading "Call changes" on
More information about the ringing-theory