[r-t] Latest draft of Decisions changes for 2017
john at jaharrison.me.uk
Mon Apr 17 14:08:09 UTC 2017
In article <749ed5da-8c44-deea-57de-05be3f06651c at tesco.net>,
Ted Steele <teds.bells at tesco.net> wrote:
> John Harrison wrote:
> ...stuff that I consider a trivial response to my message.
Not trivial at all. I questioned the validity of some of Ted's statements
and backed it up with examples.
> Perhaps John should consider what the financially struggling church
> authorities would make of it if they discover that even ringers
> themselves don't consider real bells necessary for their perfomances.
That shows complete misunderstanding of the point I was making. If a
public performance is rung in a tower (church or other) the bells heard
will be those in the tower, with whatever characteristics they may have.
My comment about old buckets was an answer to Ted's implication that any
simulated sound was unfit to be heard. In reality most simulated sound is
a lot better than some real bells.
It would be nonsense to suggest that public performances in a tower with
less than ideal bells should use simulated sound, and I did not suggest
But many peals are not intended as public performances, regardless of
whether anyone else may or may not hear bits of them. Peals rung in
heavily sound proofed towers, in areas swamped by traffic noise, in out of
the way places or in ringers' front rooms are clearly not rung for the
wider public, they are rung for the benefit of the ringers.
There's nothing wrong with that - it's part of ringing culture. So why not
recognise it officially?
More information about the ringing-theory