[r-t] Anything Goes vs Peals Mean Something

Richard Smith richard at ex-parrot.com
Mon Aug 11 17:06:01 UTC 2008

Sorry, Ted, but I disagree with almost everything you've 

The type of 'truth' you are talking about ceased being the 
whole story about a hundred years ago.  Ever since E. Banks 
James first produced a 2,160 of minor which didn't result in 
rounds after each 720, we have been moving inexorably away 
from your black-and-white model of truth.

These days, almost all innovative compositions of minor are 
not true in the limited sense you describe.  Things have 
moved on, and we cannot turn the clock back on this any more 
than we can make go back to requiring peals on 8+ bells to 
have at least 5040 changes.

This more sophisticated model of truth is necessary for us 
to get the rich variety of interesting compositions that 
currently exist on lower numbers.  Within the framework of 
conventional methods (which, for better or worse, ringers 
like), the requirements for individual, true extents 
severely curtains what can be achieved.   The standard 41 in 
7 extents, for example, is out of the question.  That's why, 
over the years, we've traded in certain aspects of truth in 
order to buy additional flexibility.

The result isn't as simple, but it's much more exciting!


More information about the ringing-theory mailing list