[r-t] Latest draft of Decisions changes for 2017
john at jaharrison.me.uk
Mon Apr 17 11:42:14 UTC 2017
In article <ebdf0947-b4e1-7935-ae42-e7918595fb2e at tesco.net>,
Ted Steele <teds.bells at tesco.net> wrote:
> ...there could be "peals" rung on non-bells (not-even necessarily
> bell-like items)
If you played the notes on the clavier of a carillon it would use a 'bell
like item'. If 8 ringers in the ringing room see each other ringing the
ropes and hear the sound above the items they are ringing (out of view) may
or not be shaped like bells and the sound may or not be made by banging
metal together. Which of those two scenarios counts as kosher ringing?
> simulated sounds (not sure what a simulated sound sounds like)
It sounds like the thing being simulated. That's what simulation means A
flight simulator gives you the sensation of flying. A ringing simulator
gives you the sensation of ringing. A bell sound simulator makes the same
sound as a bell.
> It is perhaps a blessing that these peals do not have to be audible
> outside the tower;
Why? Is the sound from a tower that inherited rough old buckets and can't
afford to replace them inherently more attractive than the (simulated)
sound of high quality bells? > perhaps that should actually be a
> these requirements clearly imply recognition of the fact that simulated
> "peals" are not peals in the same sense as conventional peals
A peal is a performance (by human ringers). A simulated peal would be one
where there were no human ringers. It's hard to see how the proposed
changes would recognise them.
An organ recital given by a human organist on a high quality organ that
uses the digitised sound of pipework rather than physical pipework is not
advertised as a simulated recital, nor a recital on a simulator.
More information about the ringing-theory