[r-t] Methods Committee proposed change 3.0(D)

Mark Davies mark at snowtiger.net
Thu Mar 23 15:43:24 UTC 2017

RAS writes,

> So why on earth are you wasting time
> trying to rewrite (D)B beyond what is necessary to effect
> proposal 3.0(D)?

A good question. I suppose the answer is, because it seems really 
unpleasant to leave all that now-redundant and over-complex wording in 
place, even for a year, when the intention of the change is to make 
things simpler and more consistent.

But you make a good point, and perhaps we shouldn't worry about it. In 
fact the type of change you suggest was the first thing we looked at. 
Tim did think that amendments to (D)B.3 and 4 were required, though. 
This is because, although they do reference paragraph 1, they don't do 
so for all clauses - in particular B.3.d.ii and B.5.e.iii would need 
similar changes. That would be just as easy, though.

I'm in two minds about it, to be honest. There are four possible options:

1. Withdraw the change - is it really worth doing this year.

2. Implement the minimal wording changes to the existing Decisions, as 
original drafted by Tim, and along the exact lines you've recommended. 
This is fine but you do end up with a needlessly complex result.

3. Completely rewrite (D)B as I've proposed. I think you end up with 
something much neater that gives better results; but it would be harder 
to convince people of that.

4. Implement Tim's "intermediate" amendment - this neatens up the 
existing Decisions but keeps their general structure. Perhaps a good 

I don't really have strong views about the best option. I feel exploring 
it has been useful, though.

> Your comment elsewhere about not wanting to allow
> single-lead methods in 2017 because there's now not time to
> fully consider the consequences of such a major revision
> applies equally to your proposed major revision of (D)B.

Yes, but not to the same degree. We know exactly what we want to achieve 
with the 3.0(D) proposal, so it's just a question of drafting it in the 
right way. With single-lead methods, I think there are unaddressed 
questions concerning classification which need some proper debate; if we 
don't treat this properly, we may end up forcing a classification onto a 
single-lead method that a composer, conductor or band would absolutely 
hate, which I don't want to do. It's something that we probably didn't 
fully bottom out in Tim's framework.


More information about the ringing-theory mailing list