[r-t] Anything Goes vs Peals Mean Something

[Don Morrison]

On Thu, Aug 7, 2008 at 5:09 PM, Mark Davies <mark at snowtiger.net> wrote:
> Well I am absolutely on the side of GACJ and MJC here. Yes, you can ring
> whatever you want, but if it's going to be a peal accepted by the ringing
> community then it ought to come up to a certain standard:

Imagine the following three performances:

1) The standard extent of Plain Bob Doubles with the 5 as observation,
rung 42 times, with mediocre striking, on an easy going six, with the
tenor covering throughout. It was not an especially noteworthy
performace for the band, just an opportunity for them to add a
particular tower to the lists of several of them that didn't have a
peal there before.

2) A touch of 5000+ changes of spliced surprise major and Stedman
Caters, with roughly equal distribuiton of stages, rung with impecable
striking on the fiendishly difficult ten at Chicago, with the tenor
behind throughout, and the 9 covering in 9ths place as well while
major is being rung. Extended to 10 bell rows every row is distinct.

3) A thoroughly bizarre touch of 5000+ changes on one of the few
places you can ring on fourteen. It is rung in 14 parts, with each
part starting with a short link block that results in a cyclic
rotation of rounds on 14. This is then followed by a block consisting
of touches of spliced surprise minor, entirely of difficult, though
standard, methods. The bells that the cyclic fiddling put into 123456
ring it there with the bell in 7ths place staying fixed, and at the
same time a similar, though different, touch of spliced surprise minor
is rung on the bells in 890ETA with the bell in last place covering.
Extended to 14 bells, every row is distinct. The people ringing really
are thinking of the main blocks as two, parallel touches of spliced
standard surprise minor methods with two, non-contiguous covers, not
some even more bizarre made up method. It, too, is rung to a very high
standard of striking.

As I understand your opinion (1) is a peal, and (2) and (3) are not.
Is that correct? Can you help me understand better why, as I would be
far more impressed with (2) and (3) myself, and think them far more
worthy of recognition of whatever sorts are available.



-- 
Don Morrison <dfm at ringing.org>
"It is youth's felicity as well as its insufficiency that it can
never live in the present, but must always be measuring up the day
against its own radiantly imagined future."
           -- F. Scott Fitzgerald, "The Diamond as Big as the Ritz"