From Changeringing Wiki
Revision as of 00:11, 6 November 2009 by GACJ (talk | contribs) (Comments and responses from the change-ringers list.)
(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to: navigation, search

David Smith, and Mark Banner supported:

> Might it help novice conductors to split the list ...

Yes, but this page is not intended to teach conducting, that would be the subject of another page. Would you like to have a go writing one? I have however split it into before, during and after ringing to make it clearer.

Quentin Armitage:

> I am not sure I agree with "The conductor uses voice commands alone"

OK, I have reworked this a bit - I was trying to highlight the difference from what most people would think of as a conductor, if not a ringer.

> Points 1 [maintaining standards] and 3 [saying what will be rung] may be the responsibility of the tower captain at a practice:

I don't say that it is the conductor's responsibility to decide what is rung, only to ensure that the band knows. At a practice, the TC may say ring a touch of easy spliced, or ring a touch of Cambridge. In the first case the conductor would need to confirm what methods he/she was going to call, and in the second may need to point out that he/she is going to call a single even thought the band already know the method they will ring. The responsibilities need to be self standing - if you are ringing a quarter or peal the tower captain may not be present. Generally, people know what is to be rung, but the conductor may need to point out some unusual features of the composition.

> Is it worth adding a supplementary point to point 1; "Give advice > to others regarding their striking"?

Yes - I have added this.

> There are some conductors who can make up a touch as they go, > and so the last bullet of point two would not apply.

Yes, I thought about this, but didn't want to make it too complicated. It is not a responsibility to recompose the touch if it is miscalled, or compose as you go.

> I don't think point 10 is a conductor's responsibility; it is > the responsibility of each member of the band for their own bell

I agree - the reason I included it is really one of personal experience. As a conductor, it is more important to stay right yourself than to spend so much brain power checking the coursing order, or trying to put other people right that you start making mistakes. This though I suppose is advice, not responsibility, so I have removed it.

> Regarding miscalling, an alternative to calling "Stand" is to > adjust the calling appropriately so as to be able to continue.

See above.

> If bells shift, should the bells only have to be stood if the > bells have been shifted "for too long"?

The CC decisions on peals says that errors in ringing must be corrected immediately. It is up to the conductor's judgement to determine what "immediately" means. The applied standard for this tends to increase with the experience of the band and the duration of the ringing - for example being very strict in umpired long length peals.

Tony Lees:

> Isn't there at least one conductor who has been known to stamp feet, > one for a bob and two for a single, when suffering from throat/voice > problems?

And Phil Tremain:

> I can certainly think of one or two who have stamped their feet, > but not to indicate bobs & singles!

I assume that both of you are not expecting this to be included in a definition!

Martin Clode:

> 0. The conductor must ring the method. Although this is true for > everyone in the band, it is essential that the conductor knows > and can ring the method.

Do you mean when the conductor rings the treble? If so, I think that it is sufficient to know that the ringing is correct. This could be done by checking course ends for example. Of course, the conductor wouldn't be able to put people right in the method. This is a disadvantage, but not an essential requirement. This view was supported by Richard Grimmett and Andrew Johnson.

Mark Banner:

> Although there's also another item missing. In between pulling off > and saying "go" the conductor should be giving the band sufficient > time to settle down and into a rhythm.

Good point. I've added that.

> Quite often I can't get a miss-called touch to come round exactly > so I get it to something close (i.e. back bells at the back, > front bells at the front) so that the band can get back into > rounds cleanly. Of course, a quarter peal or peal I'd just set up.

I'll add "call round" as an option.

> It may also be good to put the standard of ringing higher on the > list. There are various people I've seen let a touch struggle on > (with people not knowing where they are) just to get to the end.

Not sure how I can make it higher than No 1, which I think covers this?

Richard Johnston:

> ... there are many bands where unless the conductor gives > high priority to putting people right, the ringing won't get far > enough to make the earlier items apart from 9c or 9d relevant.

Yes. This is why the order of importance is approximate. In fact I think I will drop the comment re order, as there are other things that would be messy to put in better order, like calling stand for health and safety reasons.

Martin Mansley:

> Shouldn't "band placing" be in there some where

Good one. I've added it.

Anthony Barnfield:

> For the most part the outcome is more or less determined > by the time you pull off.

Good preparation and planning will usually pay off.