[r-t] How much of a method do you need to include? (was Proof

[Richard Smith]

Matthew Frye wrote:

> I must admit that i do see the logic (and beauty if you 
> want to call it that) in the 2-length system,

Genuine request, then... could someone enlighten me?

I can see why some people might want to preserve the status 
quo in this regard: we have over 250 years history of 
sub-5040 peals on 8+ bells, and these days they are fairly 
common.  By contrast there has been some, but admitedly very 
little, history of sub-5040 peals on 7 of fewer bells.  And 
to be honest, I wouldn't object too, too much if we kept 
this distinction.

But I can't see any logic behind the two-length split; and 
can I see precious little beauty, or at least my subjective 
opinion of beauty.  As Don says, I think the logical thing 
would be for all peals to be 5040+ changes, though I fully 
appreciate that for very valid historical reasons, this 
could never be.

But perhaps I'm reading too much into your choice of words 
'logic' and 'beauty'.


> unfortunately i don't agree with it, if it matters so much 
> to people then they'll follow it without anyone telling 
> them to, I personally wouldn't want to ring a peal of 
> triples that wasn't 5040 without a good reason, but 
> neither would i want to be limited to only be able to do 
> that.

Exactly so.  And I imagine this would be most people's 
position.  I wouldn't want to ring a peal of triples that 
was gratuitously not a 5040, but if by being a little 
shorter (or longer) it was able to achieve some particularly 
pleasing effect that would not otherwise be possible, then 
yes, that sounds like a good reason to me.

RAS