[r-t] Descriptions (was: A date to pencil ...)

Philip Earis pje24 at cantab.net
Thu Sep 10 06:45:05 UTC 2015

Graham: "I am just arguing that ringing more than one method in one row is 
an unnecessary complication in the codification scheme, because we would 
otherwise require a way of defining the start and end of each method rung in 
two dimensions (both between rows and within rows)"

Ander: "I never said that existing descriptive terms should be abolished. 
My concern is over the desire to force people to use them where they are not 

It's a tricky one, as there is surely some merit in both these ways of 
thinking about things.

I think it's important to stress that this debate, although superficially 
related, is fundamentally different from one of the major flaws of the 
current Decisions - namely that the Methods Committee currently try to put 
pressure on bands to describe methods in a way that neither corresponds to 
how the band approach the method, but (crucially) nor in a way that 
describes what was actually rung.

Eg with maximus link methods, the Methods Committee trying to classify these 
as eg methods with a 18 leadend change (which is never rung nor part of the 
method) to bludgeon it into the current framework, is just silly.

Now there's never going to be a 1:1 correlation of (a sequence of changes 
rung) : (ways a ringer might think about / ring them).  Even in the same 
performance, different band members will likely approach the same sequence 
in different ways.

I see no harm in a band describing something however they choose: however, 
for the purpose of record keeping and so on I'm more attracted to an 
approach that uses notation to unambiguously define what was rung.  As such, 
I think I'm a bit closer to Graham's mindset than to Ander's here.

But as I say, I don't think this is a fundamental wedge.  It is indeed 
possible to see and describe the same thing from different vantage points...

More information about the ringing-theory mailing list