bells at tedsteele.plus.com
Sat Jun 4 16:39:48 UTC 2016
On 04/06/2016 17:03, Iain Anderson wrote:
> On 2016-06-04 07:01, Robin Woolley wrote:
>> There will be those who believe that 'unclassified' is no different
>> from 'non-compliant' or 'not-recognised'.
> Who are these people that you keep referring to?
> There are several ringers on this list who have rung the quark stuff and
> they seem to be universally asking for an unclassified category. It is
> certainly far more appealing than Differential Little Hybrid.
I repeat; why not list such things as Freestyle; or some other title
that suggests a lack of commonly used constructions and a freedom from
established constraints; and let time determine which, if any are
developing into groups that justify classification in their own right. I
recall making such a suggestion a considerable time ago. Such things are
of interest to comparatively few people but it might stimulate interest
in some to see that there are change systems that are immediately
recognisable by their names as being free of the normal "rules".
More information about the ringing-theory