[r-t] Peal lengths [was Anything Goes vs Peals Mean Something]

[Don Morrison]

On Sun, Aug 10, 2008 at 7:00 PM, Mark Davies <mark at snowtiger.net> wrote:
>> How is the two length "system" (I'm personally inclined to use a ruder
>> noun) more elegant than a one length system of everything is 5,040?
>
> Lots of reasons, but all revolving around the fact that 5040 means a lot for
> Triples, and not very much for Major and above. There's a demarcation; I
> like that. I like the fact that 5024 sounds like Major and 5000 sounds like
> Royal and neither sound like the 5040 of Triples. I like the fact that,
> historically, this has what has been done. I like the celebration of the
> extent on seven, and the celebration of freedom from it on numbers above
> that.

So it's not the purported, though non-existent, elegance you like and
find beautiful, it's the Byzantine-ness. That's certainly a
understandable taste. Not one I share outside of some visual arts, and
certainly not "elegant", but nonetheless a taste I can easily imagine
others sharing.

Curiously, though, when I hear 5,040 my brain appears to first think
"45 courses of plain major, an easy three part", followed quickly by
"105 leads of surprise maximus, a somewhat awkward number to get to
without a little sleight of hand", followed somewhat later by "56
courses of Grandsire Caters, a four part is easy, how would an eight
part work?". If you'd said those are what you thought of first, too,
I'd not have been surprised, since I think those are more the sorts of
things you work on compositions of than of triples, but perhaps I'm
mistaken on what you concentrate your own efforts on.

I'm sure for people like Eddie Martin, John Pladdys, probably Philip
Saddleton, and a host of others, you're right and triples is what will
come instinctively to mind first, just like you.


-- 
Don Morrison <dfm at ringing.org>
"Inconceivable!" "You keep using that word!...I don't think it means
what you think it does."         -- William Goldman, _The Princess Bride_