richard at ex-parrot.com
Sun Jun 8 14:17:01 UTC 2014
Mark Davies wrote:
> Peter King writes,
>> 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.
> For Triples, I would say you are fully disrespecting
Quite the contrary. It must be that the ringers ringing
such a peal know a little bit more history than you. The
College Youths count a peal of 5014 of Grandsire Triples
rung in 1862. St Martin's Guild rang a 5026 (or 5025?) of
Grandsire at a similar time. Not allowing such peals to be
rung is disrespecting history.
> Recent history as well as ancient. Why should we care much
> about the heroic efforts of Wilde, Johnson et al if we can
> ring a peal of Stedman Triples with 5000 changes and bobs
Why should we care much about the heroic efforts of Wyld,
Johnson et al. if we can ring a peal of Stedman Triples with
5040 changes using bobs and singles? It's exactly the same
argument, but I'm sure you're not proposing that all peals
of Stedman Triples should be bobs-only.
>From an intellectual point of view, one form of ideal peal
of Stedman Triples is a bobs only extent. But until
recently no composition was known: for Erin that's still the
case, and for Grandsire it's known not to be possible. If
you can't ring the ideal peal you must compromise on the
ideal. The compromise could be allowing a second sort of
call, it could be allowing a shorter peal, or it could be
not requiring it to come round. Each of these possibilities
have been tried over the years, but only one is currently
considered legal. Why?
To my mind, the creation of a bobs-only 5012 of Grandsire is
no less an intellectual achievement than a standard 5040 of
Grandsire. So was the bobs-only 5040 of Grandsire rung at
Garlickhythe eleven months ago.
More information about the ringing-theory