[r-t] Anything Goes vs Peals Mean Something
sh at keystrata.co.uk
Sat Aug 9 09:35:39 UTC 2008
Finally caught up with this extraordinary flood of emails.
> MBD (and, I think, GACJ, but less so) seems to think it is
> more important to excluded the worthless things even at the
> expense of excluding other obscure but interesting things.
> DFM, IJA and I are, I think, all of the opinion that you
> should exclude very little at all, and certainly not if it
> risks excluding something that is potentially interesting or
I'm with DFM, IJA, and RAS on this. Worthless things will be recognised as
such and not rung again much, if at all: there is no great need to exclude
>An extent is something different which requires ringing all possible rows
>or permutations on that number of bells. So I am happy to say that I have
>rung a peal of major, but not an extent. Likewise I am happy to say I have
>rung an extent of minor but not a peal. So simply do away with the anomaly
>that is triples. I would be happy to say that I had rung a peal of triples
>but not an extent.
>This is no more a second class peal than it would be on 8 or 12 or
I agree - MBD is being unnecessarily restrictive in wanting to exclude peals
of triples >= 5000 and < 5040.
>Actually the possibilities for 5040+ change peals of Triples are a lot more
>exciting than I thought. If you ring fewer than 5040 changes, the composer
>just gets to pick the changes to leave out - not terribly exciting. If you
>ring MORE changes, the composer gets to choose which ones to have twice!
>Damn... I've got a feeling you could ring a true bobs-only peal this way
>though couldn't you, by adding a course instead of dropping one... am I
I'm sure you are! And maybe an easy(er) bobs-only peal composition of
Stedman triples could be obtained this way.
More information about the ringing-theory