[r-t] Stedman triples, Little Bob

Mike Ovenden mike at barleymead.fsnet.co.uk
Tue Dec 7 21:36:09 UTC 2004

> Contrary to what some people think, I believe Stedman triples is a decent
> method.  ...

> 1) One negative point about Stedman is, I feel, that it is not really one
> method, but instead two methods spliced together (ie Erin and Bastow).  To
> support this, I would say that no compositions exist (as far as I am aware
> on any number of bells) without half-lead calls.  ...
> 3) Another draw-back is that the method is not traditionally symmetric
> about a call being made.  ...

I suppose this doesn't raise more eyebrows because the two excursions to the
back look much the same from a blue line perspective, so one set of rules
covers both cases.  The fall-out is the all-too-frequent dithering about
whether to go in quick or slow.

However, rather than trying to eliminate the half lead calls in Stedman,
maybe we should regard their universal acceptance with some satisfaction -
would half lead calls be readily accepted in anything else at your average

Maybe you could even try ringing Little Bob (or similar) in the same style!
(i.e. 16 for 18 at the 1/4 and 3/4 lead) - having a fixed treble, there
shouldn't be any excuse for going in the wrong way.  (It still happens
though.)  Can't be any worse than ringing it normally.  If you particularly
like the terms quick and slow, the unnamed variant with 34 at the half lead
may be better.

Can't see it catching on somehow :(
Not very smc-friendly either.


More information about the ringing-theory mailing list