[r-t] History

King, Peter R peter.king at imperial.ac.uk
Fri Jun 6 09:43:36 UTC 2014

> The extent is more important than we realise.

I would agree and I must admit that I am in two minds over whether a peal of triples between 5000 and 5040 changes would be acceptable or not. What decided it for me was 3 points.

1) Uniformity. If a peal of triples has to be 5040 changes then why should you allow peals on higher numbers to be less. It is clear that the extent on 8 or more is fairly meaningless from a practical point of view. So once you have established the principle that ringing extents on 8 or more bells is not a requirement then I don't see the logic of insisting on it for fewer bells.
2) Symmetry.  Supposing a band wanted to ring a peal of 5076 minor for someone's 76 th birthday (or similar) by ringing a 5040 and a bob course of plain bob (again adjust to suit) would that be a peal. It would be very hard to justify why not other than an arbitrary rule (sticking to my principle that the fewer the rules the better). Then if the same band wanted to ring a 5004 (by leaving out 3 leads)  I think that is again perfectly reasonable.
3) Would it make a difference? Mostly no. there will be a few cases where people ring some obscure lengths just because they can, and a few special anniversaries being celebrated this way, but I cannot seriously Imagine that the pages of the ringing world are going to be filled with anything other than 5040s of Stedman or Grandsire. The thing is it includes the historical perspective as well as making allowance for other performances.
I do think that this should be seen as the start of a slippery slope. If you allow a 5000 then a 4998 is only 2 changes short so that's OK kind of argument. There are many peals that I wished had less than 5000 changes but you have to establish some kind of benchmark and 5000 changes is reasonaqbloe enough and fully respects the history.

More information about the ringing-theory mailing list