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