[r-t] Re: Great Barr

Robin Woolley robin at robinw.org.uk
Thu Dec 23 01:37:15 UTC 2004

Being awake with flu at this late hour prompts me to find myself in
agreement with pabs. Whilst tossing and turning before I had seen his reply,
I mentally constructed the following:

The decision in quo uses the word 'Compositions' whereas previous forms used
the word 'Peals'. Why was this change made? It could either be on a spectrum
between carelessness and adjectival stupidity or deliberate. This second
possibility is much more interesting.

Firstly, the change is meaningless unless it treats minor, and lower stages
differently than triples and higher. A deliberate change means there was a
reason and we must then try to discover which I do by way of example.

We used to read in the decisions that extents had to be 'true and
complete' - but they are also independent.

Here's an example of 'desirable' outcomes which would be allowed using
'Compositions' but not using 'Peals':

Suppose we have an extent of 30 2nds place methods spliced at the half-lead
only. (This could, if you wished, be regarded as 30 asymmetric methods
spliced conventionally also).

Take the 6th place variations of the methods and re-arrange the composition
to fit these methods into an extent. Inevitably, this would now be spliced
at the lead end also.

Most would agree that this is a 'desirable' outcome, but would not be
allowed in a peal if decision (D)C1 uses the word 'peal'

There must be other examples.

As Philip Earis pointed out at the start of this thread, every peal in more
than one method has to be called spliced. (Not quite true at the lower
stages when all extents must be spliced but near enough). If my alternative
(ii) is correct, then the peal should be 478 spliced; if (i) is correct,
then it is still spliced, but the methods will have to be re-counted.

With respect to 4ths place variations, there isn't a decision - it's just
'custom and practice'. (Like not whistling in the green room!).  There is a
lot to be said for 'custom and practice'. On a personal note, I  once put
together an extent of 12 minor methods based on D. Oxford & St. Clement's. I
agonised over whether London, I think it was, could be London as it was
bobbed and should it be a bobbed lead of D. Oxford instead. However, since I
was using Parker's arrangement - or at least a variation of it, there was,
probably, no real problem about this.

By the way, in my last, I wasn't asking about 500 becoming 250, I was asking
why 250 became 497!


PS Doesn't this thread show the efficacy of a knowledge of history? If we
want to know where we are, it helps to know how we got here!

PPS Thursday Challenge: Can anyone come up with two extents described as
above? Or a solution containing 'opposite lead end variations' if the first
is impossible?

More information about the ringing-theory mailing list