[r-t] Ben Constant's Yorkshire Royal

Mark Davies mark at snowtiger.net
Wed Jan 14 20:03:07 UTC 2009

Tom Willis writes,

> Taking this to its logical extreme (as I tend to do), then surely any two
> peals of triples in a given method are the 'same', because you've just
> replaced one block of 5040 with another...

Yes, and not just Triples. Many peals are simply plain courses extended with
blocks of three or whatever. But whilst we can take this to its logical
extreme, we don't follow it there. At some point, we say the number of
operations of additions or removals of blocks to get from one composition to
another exceeds a certain threshold, and we'll treat it as a completely
separate arrangement. In practice this is generally surprisingly easy to 

> Personaly I think those compositions obtained by transformatiosn
> (rotations, reflections) should be 'arrangements', while those obtained by
> alterations, however small, are new compositions.

Well, they are new variations on the original. If someone takes a Peter
Border 5042 of C12 and swaps the sHsH to a sMsM (as has happened to me
twice) then I am going to describe it as "arr." not "composed". I will give
the figures of the new variation, but will describe it as a variation of

If you would like to do differently with your peal records, that's fine by


More information about the ringing-theory mailing list