[r-t] Anything Goes vs Peals Mean Something

[Mark Davies]

RAS writes,

> Like Iain, I don't have a problem with shorter peals of  triples, such as
> the 5039 he outlines.  I thought that my versions of Don's definitions
> captured this well by having two concepts: true and complete.  A true 5040
> of triples is true and complete; Iain's 5039 of triples is true but not
> complete.

Yes, that's sort of good, I guess. Sounds a bit 18th Century though doesn't
it: ah well you lot might have rung a peal last weekend, but *we* rang a
True and Compleat Peal, and verily the Striking was the Finest that Man hast
ever Heard.

You're basically creating a second class of peal. No, actually, I don't like
it!

The fact that you can't ring a true 5040 of Grandsire Triples with
conventional bobs only is a *good* thing. "There is no bobs only peal of
Grandsire" is a statement that should stand in the annals of ringing for all
time, just like "There IS a bobs-only peal of Stedman".

> I'm not sure I agree.  I think covering over the same bell throughout a
> peal, while maintaining a good rhythm and a high standard of striking,
> would be harder, not easier, than covering over a whole sequence of
> different bells as in an normal peal.

This is confusing the practicalities of ringing with the theory, which is
what we are discussing, and should be embodied in a formal framework.
But in any case, it's not about difficulty per se. Ringing a peal of call
changes would probably be bloody hard, a lot more difficult than a peal of
Bristol Max. But the latter is a peal as we know it, and the former isn't.

> If a band of numpties turn up and crash through three-and-a-half hours of
> Lyddington Max at Cornhill -- so basically, shit bells, a shit method, and
> a shit band -- no-one has a problem calling this a peal.

Depends who's listening and who complains! But yes, quality is subjective.
You specify that quality is important, you allow people to voice objections.
But RAS - shit happens. :-)

> But if a relatively isolated band manages to ring its first local-band
> peal -- and the first peal for a number of its participants -- but they
> ring doubles with 768 behind throughout, that would be a real achievement.
> But under the current decisions, and yours, it wouldn't be peal (or
> wouldn't be for the ringers of 6 and 8: I'm a little unclear about that).

Not a changeringing peal for 6 and 8, no. I think that's perfectly
reasonable. Otherwise you could train a whole band to ring rounds on eight,
and get them to follow a couple of experts double-handing plain hunt on
three for three hours, and call it a peal. Well you can call it a peal if
you like, but it's not a peal as we know it. You have to be able to ring
method - or, at least, cover to method - to ring a peal.

As I said, I think it would be a very nippy day in hell before most 
peal-ringers would accept anything less.

MBD