[r-t] History

[Matthew Frye]

On 8 Jun 2014, at 18:15, Mark Davies <mark at snowtiger.net> wrote:
> OK it would seem I am in an unexpectedly tiny minority thinking it's a beautiful and essential thing that peals of Triples are 5040 changes. I am a bit surprised no-one else is speaking up for this, and I can't imagine many peal bands are going to ring less than 5040 changes, but if it helps us move forward, then with good grace I shall withdraw from the argument.

FWIW, I might've spoken up earlier had I been at a computer in the past 3 days.

I definitely agree with the importance of the extent on 7 more so than any other stage (I have little problem with <5040 on e.g. minor). For me, a 5014 of triples (or indeed a 5076) would feel cheap and wrong unless there was very good reason for it (e.g. anniversary). The 5039 bobs-only Grandsire (I think that was the example used a while ago) is an interesting case, because it *wouldn't* feel wrong to me.

There's an interesting tension here, taking Triples on its own, then an extent is very obviously *the* thing to aim for, and I think rules reflect that, however a wider context of higher/lower numbers pulls consideration towards a uniform length criteria (which can only be 5000). I think this may be an area where new and permissive style of rules that we have been advocating come back to bite us and allow some things that seem to some to not be desirable to some people. Maybe this is how the old guard feel towards compositions with 87s at back!

Yes, I seem to have convinced myself that disallowing sub-extent Triples probably isn't a good idea, but I'm still surprised at *just* how little concern has been shown. Were 5000-5039's to become commonplace (admittedly an unlikely scenario), I feel that really would devalue the centuries of theory dedicated to the extent, an outcome that I think would be a travesty.

MF