[r-t] ?CCBR meeting - Methcom proposals

Iain Anderson iain at 13to8.co.uk
Mon May 30 20:26:49 UTC 2016


I'm not a fan of the block classification (or indeed most of the weird 
modern classifications).  When I sent up the February peals of Quark, I 
asked the RW not to use the current classifications, but instead use the 
original names that D J Pipe used when he first submitted them to 
Bellboard, and that's what happened.  My thinking was twofold.  1) The 
names were likely to change in May, and given your comments, they may 
change again next year, 2) The seven (?) quark methods (Top, Bottom, Up, 
Down, Strange, Charm, plus Meson) fit together as a group and so having 
them named as different versions of Differential, Block, and Little 
Hybrid  is just nuts.  These classifications do nothing to help you 
learn or ring the methods, so what is the point of them.  In addition 
there is Bottom and I have no idea what its classification is because I 
can't find it in the methods collection - any hints anyone?

Please can we have a non-classification classification (!)  so that 
composers/conductors can call their method "Up" if they want to instead 
of having "Up Differential Little Hybrid" forced upon them?

Having said all that for the quark methods, bands that have rung methods 
such as "Chip Off The Old" and "Cromwell Tower" might have a different 
point of view.  Assuming that the classification "Block" vanishes, it 
might be polite to allow the bands/conductors to determine whether they 
want to add the word block into their methods retrospectively.


On 2016-05-30 20:28, Mark Davies wrote:
>  I think the idea was to retain "Block" in the method name. What are 
> everyone's thoughts here?

More information about the ringing-theory mailing list