[r-t] Anything Goes vs Peals Mean Something

[Richard Smith]

Mark Davies wrote:

> For instance, two extents of Minor and a 3600 of Triples
> could produce this. You're not saying you'd reject that?

No, of course not.

>> So I'm happy to accept that a minimally, 'accidentally' false peal of
>> Stedman could quite likely be rescued in this way.
>
> I'm not. "Rescuing" false peals of Stedman. It's a bit shit Richard!

When I said, "I'm happy", I meant that I accepted that it 
was the logical conclusion of what I was proposing and with 
which I was (and am) happy.  I don't like it: yes, it is a 
bit shit.  But I've not seen any workable ideas that get 
around it.  Your 'whole lead' idea, even you've acknowledged 
is too restrictive.  You're spending a lot of time arguing 
with idea of breaking an extent up arbitrarily, but you 
haven't actually provided a decent alternative yet.

>> What you now have is a peal of Mixed Stedman Triples and Variable Cover
>> Original Singles, or something of that ilk.  The very fact that the peal
>> needs a silly title should itself warn people that the peal is a bit
>> dodgy.
>
> You've put your finger on it - mixed Triples and Singles is dodgy!

Yes, it's a bit dodgy, but that's why there's a bit scary 
title of 'Mixed Stedman Triples and Variable Cover Original 
Singles' (or similar).  If you see that published in the RW, 
you know it's not your run of the mill peal of Stedman 
Triples.  And then you can look at the band, the composer, 
and any further details given, before forming an opinion. 
If it says "comp. DJP, cond. DCB" you probably know it's 
worth devoting some time to understanding it.  And if it 
says "comp. J. Q. Random" was rung in Much Piddling-in-the- 
Fen, you probably know it isn't.  But isn't that the way 
with all peals?

RAS