[r-t] A date to pencil into your calendar

Tim Barnes tjbarnes23 at gmail.com
Sun Sep 6 20:47:03 UTC 2015


-----Original Message-----
From: ringing-theory [mailto:ringing-theory-bounces at bellringers.net] On
Behalf Of Richard Johnston
Sent: Sunday, September 6, 2015 9:08 AM
To: ringing-theory at bellringers.net
Subject: Re: [r-t] A date to pencil into your calendar


> I doubt we are going to come to a common mind on this question.

> . 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).


I do agree that the proposal document as currently written is describing a
half-pull scheme.  In some ways it could be considered an unintended
consequence of allowing the identity change that whole-pull ringing can fit
into the definition of a standard performance of a half-pull scheme when the
number of rows rung is at least the number of rows in two extents.


I also agree that it's perfectly possible to ring the same method in a
number of different ways.  The current scheme could be extended to
incorporate method ringing in whole-pulls, in 3 or more pulls, or indeed in
an undefined number of pulls where the same row is rung continuously until
the conductor says something like, "next", to indicate to the band to move
on to the next row that a method generates.  It's hard to argue this isn't
method ringing because it's based on methods(!)  For such a scheme,
decisions would need to be made on whether the standard performance lengths
are based on the number of rows or the number of changes, and in the
undefined number of pulls case above, truth would presumably need to be
based on how many times a given row is 'visited', rather than how many times
it's rung.  Use of the identity change in multi-pull ringing could be
especially problematic..


But I can't help thinking that this isn't the right time to introduce
multi-pull ringing into the proposal document.  The over-arching goal of the
document is to demonstrate a possible set of updated Decisions that might
have a chance of passing the CC and getting us to a better place than we are
with the current Decisions.  Introducing a system for multi-pull method
ringing now could raise a lot of questions when there isn't, as far as I
know, much precedent for this type of ringing.  It seems better to come back
to this at a later stage once an initial set of improvements to the
Decisions have been made.  On the other hand, this proposal document
generally aims to represent a consensus of interested parties in what should
be in an updated set of Decisions, so I'd be happy to add multi-pull ringing
if there's a clear consensus that it should be included.



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://bellringers.net/pipermail/ringing-theory/attachments/20150906/6fb2e223/attachment-0003.html>

More information about the ringing-theory mailing list