[r-t] How much of a method do you need to include? (was Proof
richard at ex-parrot.com
Sun Aug 10 23:51:35 UTC 2008
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
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
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.
More information about the ringing-theory