[r-t] Proposed definition of a peal

Martin Cansdale mjclists at gmail.com
Thu Aug 7 09:59:11 UTC 2008

2008/8/7 Matthew Frye <matthew__100 at hotmail.com>:
> This is sounding worryingly like the attitude that produced the current decisions, what if i wanted to ring a peal of spliced triples and minor on 8 bells? or even if i wanted to ring spliced minor, triples and major? There is no way to make decisions that will allow these kind of interesting things to be rung, without also allowing things that we would regard as not being as good. And i would certainly like to be able to ring with different numbers of cover bells, if that means that someone is allowed to ring a peal of minimus with 12 covers, then so be it, that's their time to waste.

I have to admit that I'm finding following this thread a bit vexing at
times. We have Don's test which is (I think) that if something would
be described as change ringing by the ringer in the street, it is.
This brings in jump changes, cylindrical, etc. But then when we come
to decisions on truth, peals, etc., we move away from what the ringer
in the street might say, and decide 'I want to be able to ring X, so
the decisions have to allow X,Y, and Z.'

Someone mentioned (much earlier) that people want their ringing to be
included in the analysis for the recognition and record that it was a
peal. I don't think the solution for this is to recognise as a peal
types of ringing that I (and I suspect lots of ringers) would consider
to be any old rubbish.


More information about the ringing-theory mailing list