Ringing Forums

Roger Fox wrote in RW (1July2022 p621) that the Framework (for Method-) Ringing consultation received comments that there was no provision for Call Changes; he wished for them to have full recognition in the future, maybe as the Framework consultation says "there may be a case for adding [Call Changes] in a subsequent version of the framework if the ringing community thinks this would be useful".

There is already some quirky provision. If we ring an extent - for example of Doubles - and crucially the Call Changes are at even intervals - every handstroke or every second handstroke or even slower - then the resulting Performance is "True" and can be used to give the "Method" a name. (Quirkily) the method with a call every handstoke would be different to the method with a call every second handstroke. Also a performance with one missed handstroke-call is false: the Framework norms are content for this performance to be reported: it's the allocation of a (new Method) name that is not allowed.

In 2020 our local learners-band achieved some Minimus here and here (Double Canterbury Octets Treble Place Minimus and its Dectets version). In passing, note that the Framework naming rules allow one or more covers and one or more leading bells

We were practicing for Doubles, which is harder than it might seem: sadly the AccursedVirus intervened, and we never achieved a Performance. However with the abbreviated Virusringing, it was fun to do a 3-bell Performance which allowed the method Plain Octets Singles to be defined. I adopted the convention that a call every fourth handstroke has 'Octets' in the name, in the hope that the next band to do this will continue with the Duets, Quartets, Sextets, Octets, Dectets ... convention, but the Framework doesn't mandate this.

I could go on ... to the Doubles compositions and how the Framework deals with 's Sonic mapping ...

And Going On Some More:

"Four" "Three" "Two" "Three" "Four" "Two" "Three" "Four" "Six" "Four" "Three" "Two". (repeated until rounds)
It needs context to understand how the band implement the calls. Here there were three ringers, with an electronic handbell in each hand; the calls were through Discord and some scary-looking men were ringing the other bells through Handbell Stadium. (Other technologies are available).

At each handstroke all the three adjacent bells in the row were crossed, and at backstroke the called place was made, while the other two pairs were crossed.

Are we in the Callchange Blackzone yet ?

Those brought up with the Method-ringing tradition might classify the above as a course of Ipswich SM with the fourth as the primary hunt.

I could go on ...
PeterScott

Moseley sounds fun - even in today's red-warning heat :-)

And having mentioned going on ...

Once we have two bells ringing Plain Changes simultaneously (as above, under separate mandate to ascend one place for each row), a piece of squared paper can show how to have another bell instructed to go down one place each change ... they may need to pass one another ... and this gives a technical challenge to those ringers making-way for the named bells to pass them, perhaps in different directions ...

The mandate for a bell to start Plain Changes could continue through its two blows at front/back: for example the treble in 60-on-thirds can make its own way up and down, saving the conductor's voice to better emphasise the treble-front/back changes. ...

It's worth noticing that any transition from Rounds to Queens on eight bells - written out by the places affected, and then applied again starting from Queens, will give Tittums; and applied again to Tittums will give Rounds. Maybe give a name to the transition and say "Go name". Similarly any transition could have a name and could be applied to any starting row ...

While it's possible to define Method-ringing in this way, we still have different emphases: Method ringing usually maximises the number of swaps-per-change (eg Rounds to 21 43 65 87) while Call Changes usually has only one swap. Mehod-ringing has each rowdifferent while Call Changes admits of repeated rows.

I could still go on ... :-)
PeterScott

'Median level' is a useful idea imho. More or Less (R4) defines the concept for each mention: for ringers, line them up in order of ringing ability and the median is the ability of the ringer-in-the-middle.

Taking SimonL's view that Bob Minor is the median ringing level, our band's ringers who are comfortable with Bob Minor are also comfortable with ringing Sixty-On-Thirds - probably at full-speed (one call each handstroke); that was also the equivalence-suggestion of ClareMcC.

That may help with a Call Change equivalence for more technically challenging methods. For example, a transition from Rounds to Queens on 10 can start with 8to9, then 6 is also called over the 9 in two changes (over 7 and 9 succesively) then 4 over 9 in three more changes and 2 over 9 in four more. It's therefore possible to define this last call "2 upto 9" to mean that 2 goes up one place each handstroke until it reaches the 9, while all the intervening ringers (3, 5, 7) adjust their positions accordingly and without any further calls from the conductor.

More challenging is to do the transition at double-speed (one position at each stroke), and which is a simple implementation of Plain Changes.

Those who ring Mexican Wave may be familiar with starting a new Wave while an earlier one is still progressing around the circle: analogously it's possible to call "2 upto 9" having just called "4 upto 9" but before that instruction is completed: at full speed or at double speed.

I could go on ... :-)
Peter Scott

Open handstrokes give structure for the listener, whether methods or callchanges.

"are we ringing 10 courses" much to our amusement

It's the way you tell them :-)

321456987
is an interesting row on the 'return trip',
from there, fun to call the bells home quickly, one call each handstroke:

"3to2(lead), 9to8"; (two pairs swap at the same time)
"3to1, 9to7"
"Rounds next time"